MUScoop

Watching Zags play UCLA at home and the crowd is a major part of the game. They have a real home court advantage.

Reminds me of when we won every game at the Arena for years.

BC offers nothing for the home team. 

Quote from: keefe on December 12, 2015, 11:00:46 PM
Watching Zags play UCLA at home and the crowd is a major part of the game. They have a real home court advantage.

Reminds me of when we won every game at the Arena for years.

BC offers nothing for the home team.

Worked wonders for the Bucks tonight.

When our team is having a good season and the place is  full it is a big benefit.  I agree when the place is half full the advantage is less. Half full at the BC is almost sold out at the Arena.

+1

You should watch highlights of tonight's Bucks game.

Quote from: Heisenberg on December 12, 2015, 11:13:05 PM
+1

You should watch highlights of tonight's Bucks game.

. Just got back from bucks game and that place was as electric as I've seen it

Unfortunately, the BC was electric tonight not because of the home team, but because of the visitors. Keefe's point is spot on.

We have a great fan base, but we are a small private school playing in a modern day Roman Coliseum.

The MECCA had character. The BC does not.

Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on December 12, 2015, 11:19:34 PM
Unfortunately, the BC was electric tonight not because of the home team, but because of the visitors. Keefe's point is spot on.

We have a great fan base, but we are a small private school playing in a modern day Roman Coliseum.

The MECCA had character. The BC does not.

Should we spurn the Bucks, buy out UWM, and return to The MECCA in 2017?

I know it's completely unrealistic, but it sounds awesome...

Quote from: MUFlutieEffect on December 12, 2015, 11:57:15 PM
Should we spurn the Bucks, buy out UWM, and return to The MECCA in 2017?

I know it's completely unrealistic, but it sounds awesome...

That sounds like the complete opposite of awesome.  Can't wait for the new arena.

Quote from: Litehouse on December 13, 2015, 12:04:35 AM
That sounds like the complete opposite of awesome.  Can't wait for the new arena.

New arena won't be any better.  As long as the place is capable of hosting Monster Jam or the Shrine Circus, the basketball atmosphere will suffer.

Quote from: Benny B on December 13, 2015, 12:31:24 AM
New arena won't be any better.  As long as the place is capable of hosting Monster Jam or the Shrine Circus, the basketball atmosphere will suffer.

Except for the smaller capacity, better sightlines, more lower bowl seats, and no goddamn Zamboni tunnels it'll be exactly like the BC.

Quote from: keefe on December 12, 2015, 11:00:46 PM
Watching Zags play UCLA at home and the crowd is a major part of the game. They have a real home court advantage.

Reminds me of when we won every game at the Arena for years.

BC offers nothing for the home team.

Completely agree. BC is just too big for MU. Arena was great. 11k a game, sold out for years. Perfect size for Marquette.

I think the keys to having a genuine home court advantage incllude:

Proximity: Where are the students seated? At the Arena the students filled the entire end and then wrapped around both sides of the court. We were also very close to the action. Players and balls ended up in the crowd.

And our being on top of the action had an impact on game results. Al said that most of the 5 second inbounds violations were due to the students unnerving the opposition. And the call to action was always the "Give 'em Hell, Al!," guy. There was no better opening to a college game ever. 

Loyalty: Do the students show up consistently, regardless of opponent? We were at every game and made a point of being noticed. Whether we were playing Notre Dame or St Leo's the students turned out in droves. When I see the stands at the BC the place is rarely filled and often has vast stretches of empty seating. (The crowd for Grambling was embarrassing.)

Al said that before every tip off he looked up at the four uppermost corner seats of the Arena. His measurement of job security was that each of those seats was filled. And for years every seat was filled. It shouldn't matter who Marquette is playing. What is important is that Marquette is playing.

Band: The MU Band under Geisheker was large and loud. And even though they were there officially for the first half they stayed throughout and added a lot to the atmosphere. Whether it was playing our fight song or adding color the Band was a factor in our overall advantage.

Every major run Marquette made seemed to start with the band playing the Hamm's Beer song as Walton, Boylan, Sam, or Doc brought the ball up court.

As a Michigan grad I cannot imagine a U of M game without the band and cowbells. That tradition continues in Ann Arbor today and Marquette once had as compelling an advantage. We would be wise to resurrect some of those elements delivered by the band. 

Substituting canned music and superfluous eye wash on the jumbotron for live music is a bad decision.

Winning: Let's face it - Marquette sold out every seat at the Arena for years because we won every home game for many consecutive years and were an elite program. I think Wojo will get us back to a level of consistency where we are always competitive. His success at recruiting is encouraging and winning begins with talent. 

Beer:The drinking age was 18 and a six of PBR was $1.45. Before we began the trek to the Arena we downed more than a few at the Lanche/Gym/Hegarty's to steel ourselves for those cold Wisconsin nights. And we always bought a 6 for the road for in-game refreshment. The optimal quantity was deemed to be 6 beers - easy enough to sneak in while enabling a beer every 20 minutes.

A lubricated crowd is a happy crowd and a happy crowd is a boisterous crowd. We made some noise and had an impact.

Marquette playing at the Arena was once considered one of what Al called the best snake pits in sports. Today, at the BC, we are nowhere close to that.

The best home courts in college hoops today -

McCarthey Athletic Center

Phog Allen Fieldhouse

Cameron Indoor

Rupp

Breslin

The Pit

Rupp

Peterson

Quote from: keefe on December 13, 2015, 02:18:01 AM
I think the keys to having a genuine home court advantage incllude:


Proximity: Where are the students seated? At the Arena the students filled the entire end and then wrapped around both sides of the court. We were also very close to the action. Players and balls ended up in the crowd.

And our being on top of the action had an impact on game results. Al said that most of the 5 second inbounds violations were due to the students unnerving the opposition. And the call to action was always the "Give 'em Hell, Al!," guy. There was no better opening to a college game ever. 

Loyalty: Do the students show up consistently, regardless of opponent? We were at every game and made a point of being noticed. Whether we were playing Notre Dame or St Leo's the students turned out in droves. When I see the stands at the BC the place is rarely filled and often has vast stretches of empty seating. (The crowd for Grambling was embarrassing.)

Al said that before every tip off he looked up at the four uppermost corner seats of the Arena. His measurement of job security was that each of those seats was filled. And for years every seat was filled. It shouldn't matter who Marquette is playing. What is important is that Marquette is playing.

Band: The MU Band under Geisheker was large and loud. And even though they were there officially for the first half they stayed throughout and added a lot to the atmosphere. Whether it was playing our fight song or adding color the Band was a factor in our overall advantage.

Every major run Marquette made seemed to start with the band playing the Hamm's Beer song as Walton, Boylan, Sam, or Doc brought the ball up court.

As a Michigan grad I cannot imagine a U of M game without the band and cowbells. That tradition continues in Ann Arbor today and Marquette once had as compelling an advantage. We would be wise to resurrect some of those elements delivered by the band. 

Substituting canned music and superfluous eye wash on the jumbotron for live music is a bad decision.

Winning: Let's face it - Marquette sold out every seat at the Arena for years because we won every home game for many consecutive years and were an elite program. I think Wojo will get us back to a level of consistency where we are always competitive. His success at recruiting is encouraging and winning begins with talent. 

Beer:The drinking age was 18 and a six of PBR was $1.45. Before we began the trek to the Arena we downed more than a few at the Lanche/Gym/Hegarty's to steel ourselves for those cold Wisconsin nights. And we always bought a 6 for the road for in-game refreshment. The optimal quantity was deemed to be 6 beers - easy enough to sneak in while enabling a beer every 20 minutes.

A lubricated crowd is a happy crowd and a happy crowd is a boisterous crowd. We made some noise and had an impact.

Marquette playing at the Arena was once considered one of what Al called the best snake pits in sports. Today, at the BC, we are nowhere close to that.

FIFY

Obviously tongue and cheek but this is the most important ingredient and the missing one for Marquette as of late. I was a student during the Buzz years and the BC could get rocking when it was game time. The students were loud and showed up in force, even to cupcakes (just not over winter break). However, BC does have several built in disadvantages that keep it from being great. There are also some realities now that didn't exist before. If you want a truly great home court advantage , you put the students in the front rows, preferably very close to the enemy's bench. That will never happen in new stadiums because the atheltic departments need the ticket revenue.

You mentioned loyalty and talked about the students. I don't think they are the ones we need to worry about. From what I can see on my tv, the students have shown up to every game. Some were more sparsely attended and they could certainly improve, but they fill their section and are on their feet screaming for their team. Its the sweater vests that need a lecture on loyalty. Those primo seats right near the action look empty on tv. And the ones that are filled are sitting and looking sour. At least give your tickets to somebody if you aren't going to use them. Plenty of non-profits that could use them as prizes for fundraisers or employees who need positive recognition, or kids from local schools who could never afford a game on their own.

Even if 100% of the student population showed up to a game, they couldn't fill the BC. Alumni are the ones that need to be stepping up to add to the atmosphere. If I lived within 150 miles of the BC, I know I would be there

Quote from: keefe on December 13, 2015, 02:18:01 AM
I think the keys to having a genuine home court advantage incllude:


The best home courts in college hoops today -

McCarthey Athletic Center

Phog Allen Fieldhouse

Cameron Indoor

Rupp

Breslin

The Pit

Rupp

Peterson

You forgot one of the best ones...Cameron Indoor of the West "The Spectrum"

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on December 13, 2015, 02:49:38 AM
FIFY

Obviously tongue and cheek but this is the most important ingredient and the missing one for Marquette as of late. I was a student during the Buzz years and the BC could get rocking when it was game time. The students were loud and showed up in force, even to cupcakes (just not over winter break). However, BC does have several built in disadvantages that keep it from being great. There are also some realities now that didn't exist before. If you want a truly great home court advantage , you put the students in the front rows, preferably very close to the enemy's bench. That will never happen in new stadiums because the atheltic departments need the ticket revenue.

You mentioned loyalty and talked about the students. I don't think they are the ones we need to worry about. From what I can see on my tv, the students have shown up to every game. Some were more sparsely attended and they could certainly improve, but they fill their section and are on their feet screaming for their team. Its the sweater vests that need a lecture on loyalty. Those primo seats right near the action look empty on tv. And the ones that are filled are sitting and looking sour. At least give your tickets to somebody if you aren't going to use them. Plenty of non-profits that could use them as prizes for fundraisers or employees who need positive recognition, or kids from local schools who could never afford a game on their own.

Even if 100% of the student population showed up to a game, they couldn't fill the BC. Alumni are the ones that need to be stepping up to add to the atmosphere. If I lived within 150 miles of the BC, I know I would be there

You need a new tv, the students don't show up. I could have counted the students at Jackson State by hand, maybe 200-300 and that's being generous. Maine wasn't much better. Everyone could step up but you know, it's all about winning and playing an exciting brand of ball. We're getting there again after 2 very painful and joyless years.

We had the longest home winning streak in the country going two years ago and we're saying the BC isn't a good home court?

Anyways things I'd fix: First Keefe has a point about the band. Whoever the conductor is needs to put a bit more energy in the songs and I personally don't think they would be given that whole section when it's half full at best. 

He also has a point about beer prices at the BC, they've become almost as outrageous as the United Center it's terrible. Of course then his rant went into the realm of old guy saying "we did it better blah blah blah". Personally the last game I was sober for in my five years was NC State in 2009 so I don't know what he's talking about. 

Finally TAMU Eagle has a really good point about the sweater vests. They offer nothing in terms of game atmosphere. I haven't been there this year so I'm curious if the recent grad section is rowdy but for the most part the non student section is just silent even if they do all show up. 

There is no way in hell we would ever return to The Arena, or a venue the size of The Arena.  Marquette already sells more season tickets than The Arena can hold. 

The alleged advantage a smaller venue would contribute pales in comparison that the millions of dollars in additional ticket sales does.  I would prefer that the program focus on putting out a product that fills up their current place.

I have been a season ticket holder for a number of years, and we have always gotten good crowds  at all of the important games.  Will a few additional butts in the nosebleed seats really make a difference in our W-L record? 

And with all due respect, Keefe, I am not sure you have the best frame of reference to lecture Marquette on how to improve their game day experience.  When was the last time you attended a home game?  IIRC, you have stated previously that you haven't set foot in Milwaukee in decades.

It's important to understand the balance between a full arena and revenue. Sure, if we played in an 11,000 seat bandbox we'd sell out every game and fill the place most of the time, and even look full against cupcakes, but that's a lot of revenue the University would lose.

In 3 years, we'll move into a basketball-first arena that will address much of this. The seats will be close to the court, the stands will be full (if nothing else than out of curiosity), and the place will be loud.

As far as moving it closer to campus or making it easier to sneak booze in, well, those are things that simply aren't going to happen. If anything, getting alcohol in for underagers will be harder because of the increased security measures. And justifiably so.

It's entirely possible (and frankly likely) that we will never again create the kind of atmosphere we had in the 1970s and 80s, because it's entirely possible (and frankly likely) that we will never have the combination of an elite program coupled with relaxed societal norms that created that atmosphere.

This year has sucked because we've had two down years leading into it. Get back to the tournament, get people used to this team winning again, and offer some quality opponents and the fans will be back, and the atmosphere along with it. Win for the next three years and the Silk Exotic Performance Center will be rocking just about every game. Maybe it won't equal the heyday of the 70s, but does anyone realistically believe that is even possible?

If you think there are problems with the BC you probably didn't go to many games 2001-2007.  Agree though that it would be great  to seat a row or two of student courtside - at least on the benches side.  But sweater vests won't ever let that happen.

Really the best thing would be an on-campus arena that sits about 12,000 where MU can collect luxury box revenue.  But that's not happening.  The BC and the new place, are much better options than the Arena.

Quote from: brewcity77 on December 13, 2015, 08:26:28 AM
Win for the next three years and the Silk Exotic Performance Center will be rocking just about every game. Maybe it won't equal the heyday of the 70s, but does anyone realistically believe that is even possible?

Im sure it's running a little smoother there than the early 70s.

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on December 13, 2015, 02:49:38 AM
FIFY

TAMU .. no doubt, it is about winning.   But to decry the season ticket holders is daffy. 

The students are (by 500 miles) the most irregular attendees, with some games seeing a 2/3rds empty student section.   Your recollection of the Buzz years having students turn out "even for cupcakes" is perhaps a beer soaked, but an absolutely false memory.   

I've been a season ticket holder for 4 coaches worth of years, and while there have been better years here and there, the students are by far the most fair-weather fans.  Heck .. anyone notice that this year, MU has stopped calling them "the best student section in the country"?  They weren't for Buzz either.

No doubt, the 3-4 times a year they show up in force, it's fantastic, electric.  (Yes, it was 8-10x a year for Buzz when we were in the Awesome Big East.)

Now ..  MU has lost 2000 season ticket holders in two years.   The reason is the same for any other business losing customers: the product isn't as good as it was.  We were spoiled in the Awesome Big East when there were a dozen high quality opponents each year at the BC.  Now we've got maybe 4-5 big games a year, aren't a ranked program, and people are fickle with their dollars. 

People used to pay double for the BE games and got the pre-conference games/low interest games for free.  When that equation imploded (and the program started losing) so did ticket sales.

There's been a tremendous decline in passion for the program over the past few years, and that shows up in attendance and BC atmosphere. 

Unfortunately .. I don't see MU pulling up from this passion decline, even with a top 25 program.  Those 2000 ticket holders are gone .. they're buying mini-packs are sitting upstairs quietly, and aren't coming back.

That leaves recent grads as the only possible new customer farm, and the typical slate of games isn't appealing enough to get them to buy 21 games.

MU's base will continue to erode .. and when the new stadium is built and ticket prices go up?  Year 1, people will keep their seats for the novelty .. year 2?  Look out.

Quote from: warriorchick on December 13, 2015, 08:23:46 AM
There is no way in hell we would ever return to The Arena, or a venue the size of The Arena.  Marquette already sells more season tickets than The Arena can hold. 

Actually, not the case.  MECCA seats 12,700.  MU's season ticket base is now at 11,600 and dropping.

Quote from: mu_hilltopper on December 13, 2015, 08:46:06 AM
There's been a tremendous decline in passion for the program over the past few years, and that shows up in attendance and BC atmosphere. 

Unfortunately .. I don't see MU pulling up from this passion decline, even with a top 25 program. 

You went to games in the late Deane / early TC era right?  I did.  And the atmosphere sucked.  Tons of no shows.  Not much "passion for the program" that I recall.

Winning will solve it.  It always has.

Quote from: mu_hilltopper on December 13, 2015, 08:46:06 AM
Actually, not the case.  MECCA seats 12,700.  MU's season ticket base is now at 11,600 and dropping.

12,700 is for concerts with seating on the floor.  Its 10,783 for basketball.

Quote from: Benny B on December 13, 2015, 12:31:24 AM
New arena won't be any better. 

? Except this arena will be specifically built for basketball, not hockey.  That alone makes it much better.

I see 3 main problems with the BC that are primarily due to its design:

1) Disjointed student section, with the students broken up into 6 separate areas (2 temporary stands in front, 2 back area split by the tunnel, the corner seats, and the upper deck).  This creates a lot of gaps so the section is more spread out and not as dense as it could be, and there isn't as much of a cohesive feel to make the section a single group.

2) Small lower bowl and huge upper bowl that sticks too many people further away from the court.

3) Hockey lay-out with the end-zones set back further from the court.

Hopefully the new arena can improve all these issues.  Everything else can be fixed by winning.

As to the lost revenue if MU played in an 11,000-seat arena ... how does Duke manage to maintain its program?

Not being snarky; legitimately asking.

There is a lot to be said for making the tickets more valuable because fewer are available, but maybe that's not realistic anymore.

As is the case with others, I am looking forward to the new arena to see what the atmosphere is like there. Gotta be better than most -- not all, but most -- games I've attended at the BC.

Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on December 13, 2015, 08:50:07 AM
Winning will solve it.  It always has.

This surprisingly isn't completely true. According to the NCAA website:
2015 (13-19) 13,657
2014 (17-15) 15,327
2013 (26-9) 15,033
2012 (27-8) 15,138
2011 (22-15) 15,586
2010 (22-12) 15,617
2009 (25-10) 16,200
2008 (25-10) 16,239
2007 (24-10) 15,345
2006 (20-11) 13,998

Obviously we fell far last year but prior to that we had been winning more than we were with the big 3 and yet attendance was still falling. 

I think reseating, especially every year, has had an effect on the season ticket holder base shrinking. Every year you have to consider whether you want to donate and thus are your tickets worth it.Before 1986 you had your seats and you did not have to go through hoops to keep them.

Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on December 13, 2015, 09:16:40 AM
This surprisingly isn't completely true. According to the NCAA website:
2015 (13-19) 13,657
2014 (17-15) 15,327
2013 (26-9) 15,033
2012 (27-8) 15,138
2011 (22-15) 15,586
2010 (22-12) 15,617
2009 (25-10) 16,200
2008 (25-10) 16,239
2007 (24-10) 15,345
2006 (20-11) 13,998

Obviously we fell far last year but prior to that we had been winning more than we were with the big 3 and yet attendance was still falling.

By late Deane / early Crean era I assume he meant around 98-01.

Quote from: bilsu on December 13, 2015, 09:17:38 AM
I think reseating, especially every year, has had an effect on the season ticket holder base shrinking. Every year you have to consider whether you want to donate and thus are your tickets worth it.Before 1986 you had your seats and you did not have to go through hoops to keep them.

More than anything, I think it's television. With a full sports package, you can watch every game in high definition. Milwaukee in December, January, and February is pretty uncomfortable to go out in. At home, you can have your beer cheaper, have a great view of every play, watch any replay you want instantly, use the bathroom without fighting through lines, and do so while staying warm and not using gas.

It's on Marquette and the venue to make the event itself more appealing than the home atmosphere. Whether that's through giveaways, better in-house entertainment, cheaper concession prices, better quality of opponents, or what, I do not know, but I'll admit there have been a few games I've skipped as a season ticket holder last minute because watching the game at home was a viable option.

Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on December 13, 2015, 08:50:07 AM

You went to games in the late Deane / early TC era right?  I did.  And the atmosphere sucked.  Tons of no shows.  Not much "passion for the program" that I recall.

Winning will solve it.  It always has.

Yes, exactly this.
The BC is far from ideal, and the new arena won't be ideal either. But the administration won't - and can't - sacrifice the revenue of the games that draw 15-16,000+ so that there can be better "atmosphere" for an early December game against Maine. Too much money lost by saying no to potentially thousands of paying customers, especially when the team is playing well.

Also, as has been alluded to, there's a lot that goes into creating a great atmosphere, and the venue is just a small part of it. Northwestern's Welsh-Ryan Arena has everything one would think a building needs to create great atmosphere: relatively small size, fans practically on top of the floor, a true, compact student section, etc. But the atmosphere is lousy because the team has been lousy for a long time and the students are apathetic to it (not to mention they're often outnumbered by fans of the opposing team).
If Marquette continues to be mediocre and the students continue to not show up, moving to a smaller arena isn't going to do much for the atmosphere.

Quote from: brewcity77 on December 13, 2015, 09:23:10 AM
More than anything, I think it's television. With a full sports package, you can watch every game in high definition. Milwaukee in December, January, and February is pretty uncomfortable to go out in. At home, you can have your beer cheaper, have a great view of every play, watch any replay you want instantly, use the bathroom without fighting through lines, and do so while staying warm and not using gas.

It's on Marquette and the venue to make the event itself more appealing than the home atmosphere. Whether that's through giveaways, better in-house entertainment, cheaper concession prices, better quality of opponents, or what, I do not know, but I'll admit there have been a few games I've skipped as a season ticket holder last minute because watching the game at home was a viable option.

Maybe all this is true, but Bill Wirtz used this as an excuse to keep the Blackhawks home games off local TV forever.

Ever since the old man croaked and Rocky took over, home games have been on TV and attendance has soared. The Blackhawks are the toughest ticket in Chicago. Why? Because the product is great. Winning takes care of everything.

There are a lot of teams, pro and college, in a lot of sports in a lot of markets that regularly sell out games (or come close to it) even though those games could be watched comfortably at home.

Quote from: Litehouse on December 13, 2015, 08:53:41 AM
12,700 is for concerts with seating on the floor.  Its 10,783 for basketball.

Damn you, Google.

Quote from: Litehouse on December 13, 2015, 09:23:03 AM
By late Deane / early Crean era I assume he meant around 98-01.

I was just referring to this theory that the more we win the more people will show up. I think we top out at about 15,000 during the good years and anything greater is not tied directly to winning.

Quote from: mu_hilltopper on December 13, 2015, 09:40:34 AM
Damn you, Google.

You are obviously too young to remember that for years and years, the attendance figure for Marquette games was exactly 10,783.

Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on December 13, 2015, 08:50:07 AM

You went to games in the late Deane / early TC era right?  I did.  And the atmosphere sucked.  Tons of no shows.  Not much "passion for the program" that I recall.

Winning will solve it.  It always has.

Yep .. sucked.  When my wife and I started dating in 1997, she took me to games.  We bought some season tickets off some students for $50 and could waltz in at game-time and sit in prime seats in 211 .. no problem.  Turrible.

Although .. the analysis above about "winning" solving things .. I honestly believe we're past that. It'd help, sure .. IMHO it'd just stem the tide.

Quote from: brewcity77 on December 13, 2015, 09:23:10 AM
More than anything, I think it's television. With a full sports package, you can watch every game in high definition. Milwaukee in December, January, and February is pretty uncomfortable to go out in. At home, you can have your beer cheaper, have a great view of every play, watch any replay you want instantly, use the bathroom without fighting through lines, and do so while staying warm and not using gas.

And yet Syracuse draws nearly 24,000 a game.
People gladly will leave their couches and fork over their money to you if you give them a good enough reason.

And, let's face it, there's plenty here outside of MU's control. It's not MU's choice or fault that they're no longer hosting games against Louisville, Syracuse, Notre Dame and UConn. And yet the lack of those teams on the schedule certainly hurts atmosphere and attendance. Xavier and Butler are solid, respectable programs, but it'll be a long time (or never) before they muster the kind of excitement that a game against ND or Louisville will.

Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on December 13, 2015, 09:41:35 AM
I was just referring to this theory that the more we win the more people will show up. I think we top out at about 15,000 during the good years and anything greater is not tied directly to winning.

I was speaking mostly about the atmosphere and "passion for the program."  But even attendance will improve over the past couple of years.

Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on December 13, 2015, 09:41:35 AM
I was just referring to this theory that the more we win the more people will show up. I think we top out at about 15,000 during the good years and anything greater is not tied directly to winning.

Your data proves that the Big East + Winning does drive better attendance.  05-06 was our first year in the conference and many thought we were going to get slaughtered in the BE -- up until Novak and the big 3 took it to UCONN mid-season.  Enthusiasm rose steadily after that.

Quote from: MU82 on December 13, 2015, 09:13:30 AM
As to the lost revenue if MU played in an 11,000-seat arena ... how does Duke manage to maintain its program?

Not being snarky; legitimately asking.

In terms of basketball operations: they don't pay to lease Cameron, and ticket prices are outrageous and it still sells out (though fewer than 500 tickets per game are available to general public).


Also, they're loaded.  For perspective:

Marquette endowment: $532 Million
Duke endowment: $7.0 Billion, plus a $3.4 Billion independent endowment

Quote from: chapman on December 13, 2015, 10:00:46 AM
In terms of basketball operations: they don't pay to lease Cameron, and ticket prices are outrageous and it still sells out (though fewer than 500 tickets per game are available to general public).


Also, they're loaded.  For perspective:

Marquette endowment: $532 Million
Duke endowment: $7.0 Billion, plus a $3.4 Billion independent endowment

All this plus Nike money.

Quote from: MU82 on December 13, 2015, 09:13:30 AM
As to the lost revenue if MU played in an 11,000-seat arena ... how does Duke manage to maintain its program?

Not being snarky; legitimately asking.

There is a lot to be said for making the tickets more valuable because fewer are available, but maybe that's not realistic anymore.

As is the case with others, I am looking forward to the new arena to see what the atmosphere is like there. Gotta be better than most -- not all, but most -- games I've attended at the BC.

Duke's entire athletic program is endowed.  EVERY last scholarship last I had heard.  For MU, if I recall we had less than 10 scholarships totally endowed.....just two different worlds, two different schools and the alumni giving that goes with it.

Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on December 13, 2015, 09:16:40 AM
This surprisingly isn't completely true. According to the NCAA website:
2015 (13-19) 13,657
2014 (17-15) 15,327
2013 (26-9) 15,033
2012 (27-8) 15,138
2011 (22-15) 15,586
2010 (22-12) 15,617
2009 (25-10) 16,200
2008 (25-10) 16,239
2007 (24-10) 15,345
2006 (20-11) 13,998

Obviously we fell far last year but prior to that we had been winning more than we were with the big 3 and yet attendance was still falling.

Some folks weren't buying into squirmy.

Oh, and the economy tanked, etc.

Good point about the economy.

And I think you are seeing a lot of student apathy at a lot of places.  There are many arenas on weekdays in January and February that aren't exactly electric.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 13, 2015, 10:12:57 AM
Some folks weren't buying into squirmy.

Oh, and the economy tanked, etc.

Yeah I know you like to think there was this massive protest against Buzz but winning cures all ails for regular people. And it was the second most successful stretch of MU basketball ever. 

Economy is a good point. 

Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on December 13, 2015, 10:22:03 AM
Yeah I know you like to think there was this massive protest against Buzz but winning cures all ails for regular people. And it was the second most successful stretch of MU basketball ever. 

Economy is a good point.

Where did "some people" turn into "massive protest"?  I never said it, don't pretend I did or insert words I didn't say.  There are SOME people on this very board that said they were shying away more from the team...SOME...not Massive...SOME.

As for the second most successful stretch part, much of that was in the NCAA tournament, which is after a regular season and has no impact on the attendance that year.  Furthermore, turnover in college basketball is big each year with players graduating and leaving early.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 13, 2015, 10:29:42 AM

As for the second most successful stretch part, much of that was in the NCAA tournament, which is after a regular season and has no impact on the attendance that year. 

This was big during that period.  It was always low expectations and big finish in that period.  No team in my MU history carried the expectations that the big 3 did. We thought top ten in those latter years was no big stretch from an achievabilify standpoint. .

Quote from: Frenns Liquor Depot on December 13, 2015, 10:32:39 AM
This was big during that period.  It was always low expectations and big finish in that period.  No team in my MU history carried the expectations that the big 3 did. We thought top ten in those latter years was no big stretch from an achievabilify standpoint. .

I agree, which is why I point out the attendance part.  One of those Buzz years, we were one of the last teams to make the NCAA tournament, disappointed much of the regular season which is when fans actually go to our games.  Whereas with the Big 3, we were playing big time schools, playing them well, and attendance came because attendance largely reacts to what is going on now.

Watch, the Bucks attendance will get a bump in the coming weeks based on last night.  That's just sports fandom.

Quote from: Benny B on December 13, 2015, 12:31:24 AM
New arena won't be any better.  As long as the place is capable of hosting Monster Jam or the Shrine Circus, the basketball atmosphere will suffer.

Ummm. The new arena will be smaller and designed for basketball, which the bc is not. That alone will make the new arena a lot better with better angle and double the fans on the lower level. Add in better amenities and lighting design and we will be playing in an awesome arena. Especially if wojo gets us going where we draw 15k plus again.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 13, 2015, 10:29:42 AM
Where did "some people" turn into "massive protest"?  I never said it, don't pretend I did or insert words I didn't say.  There are SOME people on this very board that said they were shying away more from the team...SOME...not Massive...SOME.

As for the second most successful stretch part, much of that was in the NCAA tournament, which is after a regular season and has no impact on the attendance that year.  Furthermore, turnover in college basketball is big each year with players graduating and leaving early.

So your answer to almost 1,000 person drop in attendance is that some people don't like squirmy? You just had to put some pointless shot at Buzz in there?

You don't think NCAA tournament impacts attendance for the following year though?

Well what do you say is the second most successful stretch? Buzz in four years had 122 wins in five years Tom Crean from 2002 to 06 had 111 wins. Tom Crean had 107 wins in the five years prior to Buzz.  Outside of that there's really not any competition for a five year stretch. Even if you included the last year where he was terrible he still has a higher win total than any 6 year stretch of Tom Crean. He was better regular season and tournament than any other coach since Al which means it was the second most successful stretch. 

Quote from: warriorchick on December 13, 2015, 08:23:46 AM
There is no way in hell we would ever return to The Arena, or a venue the size of The Arena.  Marquette already sells more season tickets than The Arena can hold. 

The alleged advantage a smaller venue would contribute pales in comparison that the millions of dollars in additional ticket sales does.  I would prefer that the program focus on putting out a product that fills up their current place.

I have been a season ticket holder for a number of years, and we have always gotten good crowds  at all of the important games.  Will a few additional butts in the nosebleed seats really make a difference in our W-L record? 

And with all due respect, Keefe, I am not sure you have the best frame of reference to lecture Marquette on how to improve their game day experience.  When was the last time you attended a home game?  IIRC, you have stated previously that you haven't set foot in Milwaukee in decades.

Don't confuse revenue generation with having what Al called a snake pit. Because I think we lost our home court advantage by moving to the cavernous BC.

And for what it is worth I have been in Milwaukee on and off over the years. My wife was from there and she was involved with the basketball program so I have been to games at the BC. Unfortunately, I spent most of the past decade in Iraq and Afghanistan so I wasn't able to make any games.

My intuitive guess is that, if you normalize against how good a team Marquette has, that we have performed pretty much just as well in the Arena as we have the BC.

Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on December 13, 2015, 11:29:24 AM
My intuitive guess is that, if you normalize against how good a team Marquette has, that we have performed pretty much just as well in the Arena as we have the BC.

I think a lot of the discussion deflects from the main point which is Marquette once had a huge environmentally-derived home court advantage - one of the best in the nation - which has long since been lost.

Gonzaga had the opportunity to play in a public-funded multi-purpose cavern but instead chose to build the Dog Pound on campus. The 6,000 seat MAC is an incredible place to watch a game. 

I am not arguing that MU should replicate the MAC but there is no comparison in game experience between Cameron, the MAC, Rupp, Cintas, Allen, Kohl and a place like the BC.

Quote from: keefe on December 13, 2015, 11:20:59 AM
Don't confuse revenue generation with having what Al called a snake pit. Because I think we lost our home court advantage by moving to the cavernous BC.

And for what it is worth I have been in Milwaukee on and off over the years. My wife was from there and she was involved with the basketball program so I have been to games at the BC. Unfortunately, I spent most of the past decade in Iraq and Afghanistan so I wasn't able to make any games.

No excuse keefe!  You could have flown for 15 yours, ubered to the game and flown back using one day's leave.   ;D

Quote from: keefe on December 13, 2015, 11:45:06 AM
I think a lot of the discussion deflects from the main point which is Marquette once had a huge environmentally-derived home court advantage - one of the best in the nation - which has long since been lost.

Gonzaga had the opportunity to play in a public-funded multi-purpose cavern but instead chose to build the Dog Pound on campus. The 6,000 seat MAC is an incredible place to watch a game. 

I am not arguing that MU should replicate the MAC but there is no comparison in game experience between Cameron, the MAC, Rupp, Cintas, Allen, Kohl and a place like the BC.

But this is where you lose me.  I have been to the Kohl Center about a dozen times for UW games.  Bad opponents lead to listless and bored crowds.  A quiet atmosphere.  (Though one with better seating than the BC.)  Good opponents lead to an electric and exciting atmosphere. 

I think you are buying into hype versus what the reality is.  The BC is a dead place for Jackson State.  The BC can be an electric place for good teams.  I have experienced that.

And you keep saying stuff like Marquette once had a "huge environmentally-derived home court advantage" at the Arena without showing any evidence that this actually was the case.

This whole point is moot. We'll be out of the BC in three years. Any sweeping changes to improve the environment will have to take place at the new arena.

Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on December 13, 2015, 11:53:22 AM

But this is where you lose me.  I have been to the Kohl Center about a dozen times for UW games.  Bad opponents lead to listless and bored crowds.  A quiet atmosphere.  (Though one with better seating than the BC.)  Good opponents lead to an electric and exciting atmosphere. 

I think you are buying into hype versus what the reality is.  The BC is a dead place for Jackson State.  The BC can be an electric place for good teams.  I have experienced that.

And you keep saying stuff like Marquette once had a "huge environmentally-derived home court advantage" at the Arena without showing any evidence that this actually was the case.

We were sold out for years and we went several seasons without losing a home game. In fact, Marquette's home winning streak was longer than UCLA's total winning streak.

Here is my proof, though: Al McGuire coined the expression "Snake Pit" to describe Marquette's home court advantage at the Arena. He said it was the toughest place in the nation for a visiting team to play. I'll stand on that any day.

Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on December 13, 2015, 11:53:22 AM

But this is where you lose me.  I have been to the Kohl Center about a dozen times for UW games.  Bad opponents lead to listless and bored crowds.  A quiet atmosphere.  (Though one with better seating than the BC.)  Good opponents lead to an electric and exciting atmosphere. 

I think you are buying into hype versus what the reality is.  The BC is a dead place for Jackson State.  The BC can be an electric place for good teams.  I have experienced that.

And you keep saying stuff like Marquette once had a "huge environmentally-derived home court advantage" at the Arena without showing any evidence that this actually was the case.

I'll mention 4 in the last few years.  Bucky in 2012, Big Monday against Syracuse, GTown for the original 'I Believe' chant, and ND the last game of the year.  I know 3 of those opponents are gone but as our program improves the energy will return.

You want to hear silence?  About the 10 minute mark against Iowa a few weeks back.

Quote from: keefe on December 13, 2015, 12:01:19 PM
We were sold out for years and we went several seasons without losing a home game. In fact, Marquette's home winning streak was longer than UCLA's total winning streak.

Here is my proof, though: Al McGuire coined the expression "Snake Pit" to describe Marquette's home court advantage at the Arena. He said it was the toughest place in the nation for a visiting team to play. I'll stand on that any day.

Right.  Marquette had an incredibly good team.  Just prior to the 2013-14 season opener, Marquette had the longest home winning streak in the country...you know...at the Bradley Center.

Good teams win a lot at home.

Look keefe, if you like the atmosphere at Gonzaga and wish Marquette still played in a more intimate environment, that's great.  But when you say stuff like "BC offers nothing for the home team," it is hard to take you seriously because that is simply false.

Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on December 13, 2015, 10:45:56 AM
So your answer to almost 1,000 person drop in attendance is that some people don't like squirmy? You just had to put some pointless shot at Buzz in there?

You don't think NCAA tournament impacts attendance for the following year though?

Well what do you say is the second most successful stretch? Buzz in four years had 122 wins in five years Tom Crean from 2002 to 06 had 111 wins. Tom Crean had 107 wins in the five years prior to Buzz.  Outside of that there's really not any competition for a five year stretch. Even if you included the last year where he was terrible he still has a higher win total than any 6 year stretch of Tom Crean. He was better regular season and tournament than any other coach since Al which means it was the second most successful stretch.

Nope, apparently you aren't reading again. 

I think some are confusing results vs atmosphere. Most who have seen numerous games at both the Arena and the BC -- and I'm talking both "good" opponents and "bad" opponents -- would agree that the Arena had the better basketball atmosphere. It wasn't cavernous, it was more intimate, the percentage of seats filled by students was greater, etc. As Crash said, Al called it a snakepit. He would never call the BC a snakepit, even if we had a great crowd for a great game. Doesn't mean a good team shouldn't win at home.

I agree we're probably never going back to a smaller, more intimate arena, though.

As for "bad" opponents failing to draw much of a crowd at all -- and those who do go don't help elevate the atmosphere above "dead" ...

My one trip to Allen Fieldhouse was on Dec. 30, 2003. It was for a Kansas-Binghamton game over Xmas break and the Jayhawks were coming off a very disappointing loss to Nevada. It was sold out and the atmosphere was amazing.

Yes, I know that Kansas is Kansas, we'll never be Kansas, and there's nothing else to do in Lawrence. Just saying that there are plenty of fanbases that don't mail it in just because the opponent sucks.

Quote from: MU82 on December 13, 2015, 12:44:31 PM
I think some are confusing results vs atmosphere. Most who have seen numerous games at both the Arena and the BC -- and I'm talking both "good" opponents and "bad" opponents -- would agree that the Arena had the better basketball atmosphere. It wasn't cavernous, it was more intimate, the percentage of seats filled by students was greater, etc. As Crash said, Al called it a snakepit. He would never call the BC a snakepit, even if we had a great crowd for a great game. Doesn't mean a good team shouldn't win at home.

Oh I agree with this.  It's when you start equating the "atmosphere" with the results is where I start to get uncomfortable.

Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on December 13, 2015, 12:34:20 PM
Look keefe, if you like the atmosphere at Gonzaga and wish Marquette still played in a more intimate environment, that's great.  But when you say stuff like "BC offers nothing for the home team," it is hard to take you seriously because that is simply false.

This isn't a zero-sum equation. I believe that the Arena was a great venue to watch Marquette basketball. Every single game was sold out and the crowd was a factor in the game. Al said that the fans were a benefit and contributed to the winning.

I don't think the BC offers that same atmosphere. And, unlike at the Arena, which was always sold out the BC is rarely so.

You disagree and that's fine. I wasn't looking for victory but, rather, to express an opinion.

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-22aBpwX_zzk/TxOysnwv-EI/AAAAAAAABFI/0FzYdHigcLk/s1600/IMG_1673.JPG)

(http://marquettewire.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/studentsection.jpg)


(//)

Quote from: MU82 on December 13, 2015, 12:44:31 PM
I think some are confusing results vs atmosphere. Most who have seen numerous games at both the Arena and the BC -- and I'm talking both "good" opponents and "bad" opponents -- would agree that the Arena had the better basketball atmosphere. It wasn't cavernous, it was more intimate, the percentage of seats filled by students was greater, etc. As Crash said, Al called it a snakepit. He would never call the BC a snakepit, even if we had a great crowd for a great game. Doesn't mean a good team shouldn't win at home.

I agree we're probably never going back to a smaller, more intimate arena, though.

As for "bad" opponents failing to draw much of a crowd at all -- and those who do go don't help elevate the atmosphere above "dead" ...

My one trip to Allen Fieldhouse was on Dec. 30, 2003. It was for a Kansas-Binghamton game over Xmas break and the Jayhawks were coming off a very disappointing loss to Nevada. It was sold out and the atmosphere was amazing.

Yes, I know that Kansas is Kansas, we'll never be Kansas, and there's nothing else to do in Lawrence. Just saying that there are plenty of fanbases that don't mail it in just because the opponent sucks.

I agree with this. And I also remember the time when we showed up for every game and made our presence known - whether it was Notre Dame, Marathon Oil, or Stetson.

The great venues are jammed to the rafters and the fans are a part of the game. MU fans - students & alums - seem to pick and choose their moments these days. That wasn't always the case and the Marquette basketball experience is lesser for that.

Supply and demand. Always been the case.  The BC is too damn big for us, but the Arena is too damn small.  Thus the issue.  We did the math, many times....from a revenue perspective when I was there in the department.

Imagine being the director of marketing trying to put those butts in the seats when the team was not even going to the NIT, let alone NCAA tournament and the place held 19,000 fans.  A challenge, to be sure. 

Seems like people are debating two different things:  Atmosphere and attendance.

Atmosphere is always going to depending on three things:  quality of home team, quality of opponent and physical characteristics of the venue.  Sure having 17000 in the BC versus 11000 could make for a bigger atmosphere but that's more about enthusiasm and acoustics then the number of people.

Attendance is going to be a different monster and that is about quality of experience to put butts in seats so MU/building owners maximize their revenue.  Attendance is driven by different (but some overlapping) factors: quality of home team, quality of opponent, entertainment option competition, attendance experience, watching the game at home experience.

First two are obvious and most within MU's control.  The 3rd (entertainment options) are why you can't compare a Duke, Zags, or even Madison to Marquette.  Milwaukee has a million more options for the entertainment dollar than say Spokane or Durham. Marquette is competing with concerts, Bucks, and Admirals within their own building for entertainment dollar let alone UWM, Wave, MSO, etc. So that's always going to be head win other schools like Creighton or Gonzaga or Duke don't have.

The attendance experience is something they are working on in the BC and will be vastly improved with the new arena.  They have new food and drink options in the BC that make going to the game more interesting(and more expensive but one thing at a time), that will be further improved with the new arena having new concessions and great sight lines and good seats (WITH CUP HOLDERS IF THERE IS A GOD).

The last item, at game versus home watching, that's something everyone is struggling with as sports network are putting any content they can grab on TV.  The BC just added WiFi a couple of weeks ago, which is good but should have been done 5 years ago.  Access to replays for the game I'm at as well as games of other consequence is the next step.  Having access to real time stats is another step that could be taken or maybe they even have an in house play analysis channel I can get where they walk me through how a played work.....basically deliver content that I can get at home but at the game and I'm much more likely to go to the game because I can see the game live, get the game experience AND get all the stuff I would get at home.  Marquette needs to work with the Bucks folks to develop some of this content (think BMOBC in game app) and the associated revenue streams that can come with it.

At least that's the way I see it

Quote from: keefe on December 13, 2015, 01:03:01 PM
I agree with this. And I also remember the time when we showed up for every game and made our presence known - whether it was Notre Dame, Marathon Oil, or Stetson.

The great venues are jammed to the rafters and the fans are a part of the game. MU fans - students & alums - seem to pick and choose their moments these days. That wasn't always the case and the Marquette basketball experience is lesser for that.

Don't think that is unique to Marquette....it's true of a lot of college programs and even some pro teams.

Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on December 13, 2015, 12:27:34 PM

Right.  Marquette had an incredibly good team.  Just prior to the 2013-14 season opener, Marquette had the longest home winning streak in the country...you know...at the Bradley Center.

Good teams win a lot at home.

Yep.
And I think "atmosphere" is pretty far down the list as to why home court offers an advantage. More important is the lack of travel, familiarity with the arena and the shooting background, and referee bias (which one, I suppose, could argue is created in part by atmosphere) all weigh more heavily than how much the fans are into the game.
Let's face it, as much as we'd like to believe otherwise, we're really not that important and don't do much to influence games.

When the BC is rocking for a big game the place is great.  When you take into account other stuff that goes into the gameday experience, like alcohol options, food options, surrounding bar/restaurant/hotel scene, and throw in proximity to campus and proximity to downtown working alumni base, I can't think of a single school with a better set-up.  It's a different gameday experience than the stereotypical college atmosphere, more of a college/NBA hybrid, but it's a great fit for Marquette and part of what makes us unique.

Quote from: Litehouse on December 13, 2015, 01:34:28 PM
When the BC is rocking for a big game the place is great.  When you take into account other stuff that goes into the gameday experience, like alcohol options, food options, surrounding bar/restaurant/hotel scene, and throw in proximity to campus and proximity to downtown working alumni base, I can't think of a single school with a better set-up.  It's a different gameday experience than the stereotypical college atmosphere, more of a college/NBA hybrid, but it's a great fit for Marquette and part of what makes us unique.

Agreed

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 13, 2015, 12:42:00 PM
Nope, apparently you aren't reading again.

Nope it's still not the second most successful stretch because you don't want it to be?

Quote from: Litehouse on December 13, 2015, 01:34:28 PM
When the BC is rocking for a big game the place is great.  When you take into account other stuff that goes into the gameday experience, like alcohol options, food options, surrounding bar/restaurant/hotel scene, and throw in proximity to campus and proximity to downtown working alumni base, I can't think of a single school with a better set-up.  It's a different gameday experience than the stereotypical college atmosphere, more of a college/NBA hybrid, but it's a great fit for Marquette and part of what makes us unique.

+1

Wait .. the BC has added wi-fi?   I swear I checked the networks a month ago .. must have missed it.  In the bowl?

Quote from: mu_hilltopper on December 13, 2015, 02:05:15 PM
Wait .. the BC has added wi-fi?   I swear I checked the networks a month ago .. must have missed it.  In the bowl?

Yep.  Couple weeks back.

Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on December 13, 2015, 01:48:46 PM
Nope it's still not the second most successful stretch because you don't want it to be?

Sigh.

You said "So your answer to almost 1,000 person drop in attendance is that some people don't like squirmy? You just had to put some pointless shot at Buzz in there?"

And I said...nope.   Because that's not what I said, because you aren't reading properly...again.  The word SOME means something.  Thus, the 1000 person drop is not solely attached to that.  I said SOME is.  I also said the economy.  There are other factors as well.

Use that education

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 13, 2015, 02:10:55 PM
Sigh.

You said "So your answer to almost 1,000 person drop in attendance is that some people don't like squirmy? You just had to put some pointless shot at Buzz in there?"

And I said...nope.   Because that's not what I said, because you aren't reading properly...again.  The word SOME means something.  Thus, the 1000 person drop is not solely attached to that.  I said SOME is.  I also said the economy.  There are other factors as well.

Use that education

And my point was that there's no reason to bring that "some" in there when it's an unbelievably small portion of people. Thus you just wanted to take a shot at Buzz that wasn't necessary. You've also continued to ignore the other part of this disagreement that you were wrong on.

Quote from: mu_hilltopper on December 13, 2015, 02:05:15 PM
Wait .. the BC has added wi-fi?   I swear I checked the networks a month ago .. must have missed it.  In the bowl?

Yep, it's been pretty good so far, but the BC hasn't been packed when I'm there to really test it.

As a protest, 13,000 people should take out their phones and stream Fox Sports1 so we can watch freaking replays.

The new arena should solve any issues. 10K in the lower level. Basically open the upper deck for big games.  All season ticket holders will have great seats.

Quote from: keefe on December 13, 2015, 11:20:59 AM
Don't confuse revenue generation with having what Al called a snake pit. Because I think we lost our home court advantage by moving to the cavernous BC.

And for what it is worth I have been in Milwaukee on and off over the years. My wife was from there and she was involved with the basketball program so I have been to games at the BC. Unfortunately, I spent most of the past decade in Iraq and Afghanistan so I wasn't able to make any games.

Keefe, I truly appreciate and am sincerely grateful for your service to the country. If I have not mentioned that previously, shame on me.  But a wise man such as yourself would have to agree that it is not really fair for you to judge the current game day atmosphere when you have never experienced it.  Some of the best parts never make it onto the TV broadcasts.

Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on December 13, 2015, 02:13:18 PM
And my point was that there's no reason to bring that "some" in there when it's an unbelievably small portion of people. Thus you just wanted to take a shot at Buzz that wasn't necessary. You've also continued to ignore the other part of this disagreement that you were wrong on.

You ignored the SOME part, and for SOME that was the reason.  I gave the other reasons.  You chose to ignore them. 

The one thing missing that started the topic is, Gonzaga is a WCC school that plays in a 6,000 seat gym, that gets to host mighty UCLA. Of course the gym will be nuts.

Quote from: mu03eng on December 13, 2015, 02:23:28 PM
Yep, it's been pretty good so far, but the BC hasn't been packed when I'm there to really test it.

Tried it at the Bucks-Warriors game last night, wasn't great.

Quote from: warriorchick on December 13, 2015, 09:45:36 AM
You are obviously too young to remember that for years and years, the attendance figure for Marquette games was exactly 10,783.

Incorrect.  The number was 10,938.  Then they bumped up the capacity and it was 11,052.

Quote from: martyconlonontherun on December 13, 2015, 10:44:57 AM
Ummm. The new arena will be smaller and designed for basketball, which the bc is not. That alone will make the new arena a lot better with better angle and double the fans on the lower level. Add in better amenities and lighting design and we will be playing in an awesome arena. Especially if wojo gets us going where we draw 15k plus again.

Ummmmm... there's a dig difference between an arena that's "designed for basketball" and a basketball arena.  The Joyce is a basketball arena.  Hinkle is a basketball arena.  Cameron is a basketball arena. 

The new Bucks arena is simply "designed for basketball," which would otherwise be great if not for the fact that it is not designed for basketball exclusively.

Quote from: Benny B on December 13, 2015, 08:05:10 PM
Ummmmm... there's a dig difference between an arena that's "designed for basketball" and a basketball arena.  The Joyce is a basketball arena.  Hinkle is a basketball arena.  Cameron is a basketball arena. 

The new Bucks arena is simply "designed for basketball," which would otherwise be great if not for the fact that it is not designed for basketball exclusively.

My point is the design will be so much better than the bc. Is that wrong? Could it be better? Yes. But the original quote said there won't be much improvement at the new arena, which I find to be a false statement.

Only time we should ever go back to the arena is if we do a big alumni event where we play Loyola or some other school we used to play a ton as a buy game, market it as such, bring in former players and hope alumni are willing to pay a huge face value. Could be a cool scene but we also over estimated the demand for a game at the Al, which wasn't exactly a snake pit..

Quote from: warriorchick on December 13, 2015, 03:05:48 PM
  But a wise man such as yourself would have to agree that it is not really fair for you to judge the current game day atmosphere when you have never experienced it.  Some of the best parts never make it onto the TV broadcasts.

My whole point was to say that the BC is not able to be as much fun as a game at a place like Gonzaga's MAC. We did some winter survival training over at Fairchild AFB and on our way out of town we scored some Zag tix against Pepperdine. I was genuinely impressed with how alive that building is. 

This was never intended to be a criticism of Marquette's game management. All I was saying is that, compared with the Arena, the BC is just not that great a venue for college basketball.

My only elaboration is that I find it disappointing that the stands are empty for so many games. When we were at MU it didn't matter who we played; what mattered was that Marquette was playing and we turned out for every game on the schedule.

Quote from: ChuckyChip on December 13, 2015, 07:40:03 PM
Incorrect.  The number was 10,938.  Then they bumped up the capacity and it was 11,052.

Yup.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 13, 2015, 10:29:42 AM
Where did "some people" turn into "massive protest"?  I never said it, don't pretend I did or insert words I didn't say.  There are SOME people on this very board that said they were shying away more from the team...SOME...not Massive...SOME.

Total BS. How many people do you know (on this board or anywhere else) who dropped their season tickets because of your made up "squirmy"? Names please. My guess is zero. I do know one guy who dropped them do to the "squirmy" of TC. He picked them up again after watching Buzz for a year. That would be me.

Quote from: keefe on December 13, 2015, 09:07:44 PM
My whole point was to say that the BC is not able to be as much fun as a game at a place like Gonzaga's MAC. We did some winter survival training over at Fairchild AFB and on our way out of town we scored some Zag tix against Pepperdine. I was genuinely impressed with how alive that building is. 

This was never intended to be a criticism of Marquette's game management. All I was saying is that, compared with the Arena, the BC is just not that great a venue for college basketball.

My only elaboration is that I find it disappointing that the stands are empty for so many games. When we were at MU it didn't matter who we played; what mattered was that Marquette was playing and we turned out for every game on the schedule.

I don't think anyone disagree that for a big game it would be awesome to have the intimate intense environment. That said, I don't think there are many people who would want to give up the perks of the bc. Availability of tickets (I think it's awesome all student have access to tickets instead of a select few in Madison), revenue to provide the program with cash for coaches salaries and luxuries for the players, food options, cross pollination with NBA players, etc.

Quote from: martyconlonontherun on December 13, 2015, 09:57:55 PM
I don't think anyone disagree that for a big game it would be awesome to have the intimate intense environment. That said, I don't think there are many people who would want to give up the perks of the bc. Availability of tickets (I think it's awesome all student have access to tickets instead of a select few in Madison), revenue to provide the program with cash for coaches salaries and luxuries for the players, food options, cross pollination with NBA players, etc.

Another great band box home court was Depaul's Alumni Hall. A group of us went there for a Marquette game and it was a tremendous atmosphere. Problem was that they got good and needed more than 6,000 seats so they moved to the Rosemont which was an absolutely terrible place to play basketball.

Quote from: martyconlonontherun on December 13, 2015, 08:22:07 PM
My point is the design will be so much better than the bc. Is that wrong? Could it be better? Yes. But the original quote said there won't be much improvement at the new arena, which I find to be a false statement.

Only time we should ever go back to the arena is if we do a big alumni event where we play Loyola or some other school we used to play a ton as a buy game, market it as such, bring in former players and hope alumni are willing to pay a huge face value. Could be a cool scene but we also over estimated the demand for a game at the Al, which wasn't exactly a snake pit..

I agree that the new arena will be better, but so too is emptying a diaper pail better than having to clean grandma's bedpan.

On a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is a church converted into a gym and places like the Joyce and Cameron are 10's... if the BC is currently about a 2 or 3, the new arena is going to be a 4 or 5.  Sure, that's twice as good if you want to look at it that way, but it's still only half as good as a true basketball arena.

My point is that the second you design an arena with additional utility other than basketball (e.g. concerts, indoor soccer, hockey, Bi-Mon-Sci-Fi-Con, etc.), you drastically diminish the ability to create a "home court" atmosphere the likes of those 10's... sure, the right amount of noise can rock the BC, but 9,000 people at Cameron can make that place twice as unfriendly (to the opposition) as 18,000 people at the BC.  I hope I'm proven wrong, but it doesn't matter what the sight lines or capacity of the new Bucks arena is going to be, as long as it's also designed for Elmo On Ice, it's still going to be a bedpan relative to what a basketball arena should be.

Quote from: Benny B on December 14, 2015, 09:42:37 AM
I agree that the new arena will be better, but so too is emptying a diaper pail better than having to clean grandma's bedpan.

On a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is a church converted into a gym and places like the Joyce and Cameron are 10's... if the BC is currently about a 2 or 3, the new arena is going to be a 4 or 5.  Sure, that's twice as good if you want to look at it that way, but it's still only half as good as a true basketball arena.

My point is that the second you design an arena with additional utility other than basketball (e.g. concerts, indoor soccer, hockey, Bi-Mon-Sci-Fi-Con, etc.), you drastically diminish the ability to create a "home court" atmosphere the likes of those 10's... sure, the right amount of noise can rock the BC, but 9,000 people at Cameron can make that place twice as unfriendly (to the opposition) as 18,000 people at the BC.  I hope I'm proven wrong, but it doesn't matter what the sight lines or capacity of the new Bucks arena is going to be, as long as it's also designed for Elmo On Ice, it's still going to be a bedpan relative to what a basketball arena should be.

Completely disagree, look no further than where the Seahawks play in Seattle.  Place was designed as a multi-purpose venue but also to generate one of, if not the best home field advantages.

Also, we also see Duke on all the big nationally televised games with a team that matters as an opponent, I don't think Cameron is jumping quite as hard when Midwestern Directional State University comes to town

Quote from: mu03eng on December 14, 2015, 09:46:28 AM
Completely disagree, look no further than where the Seahawks play in Seattle.  Place was designed as a multi-purpose venue but also to generate one of, if not the best home field advantages.

Also, we also see Duke on all the big nationally televised games with a team that matters as an opponent, I don't think Cameron is jumping quite as hard when Midwestern Directional State University comes to town

Football is a completely different animal.  Not to mention that the detriment to the home field/court advantage only arises when you build an arena/stadium for something larger than what it's intended for, e.g. building a basketball arena with hockey capabilities.  Nothing is larger than football, so a football stadium that's designed for multi-purpose isn't a bad thing.  Nothing is smaller than basketball (when it comes to the major sports)... therein lies the problem.

Quote from: Benny B on December 14, 2015, 10:00:23 AM
Football is a completely different animal.  Not to mention that the detriment to the home field/court advantage only arises when you build an arena/stadium for something larger than what it's intended for, e.g. building a basketball arena with hockey capabilities.  Nothing is larger than football, so a football stadium that's designed for multi-purpose isn't a bad thing.  Nothing is smaller than basketball (when it comes to the major sports)... therein lies the problem.

So what makes a basketball arena (assuming for that purpose only) so intimidating, is it the small size?  Kohl Center isn't small and is multi-purpose and seems to do just fine.  Same with Assembly Hall and the Carrier Dome.  I'm trying to understand stand why a multi-purpose facility automatically can't be intimidating.

Quote from: Benny B on December 14, 2015, 09:42:37 AM
I agree that the new arena will be better, but so too is emptying a diaper pail better than having to clean grandma's bedpan.

On a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is a church converted into a gym and places like the Joyce and Cameron are 10's... if the BC is currently about a 2 or 3, the new arena is going to be a 4 or 5.  Sure, that's twice as good if you want to look at it that way, but it's still only half as good as a true basketball arena.

My point is that the second you design an arena with additional utility other than basketball (e.g. concerts, indoor soccer, hockey, Bi-Mon-Sci-Fi-Con, etc.), you drastically diminish the ability to create a "home court" atmosphere the likes of those 10's... sure, the right amount of noise can rock the BC, but 9,000 people at Cameron can make that place twice as unfriendly (to the opposition) as 18,000 people at the BC.  I hope I'm proven wrong, but it doesn't matter what the sight lines or capacity of the new Bucks arena is going to be, as long as it's also designed for Elmo On Ice, it's still going to be a bedpan relative to what a basketball arena should be.

The first thing I'd say is that I have heard nothing about the new arena having ice. It's already been pretty publicly announced that the Admirals won't be playing there and I highly doubt the new owners will be going out of their way to design a basketball facility that accommodates a NHL team.

Every indication is that this will be a basketball first venue. The other events that happen at the BC, such as your Monster Trucks, Icecapades, that stuff will probably go to the Cell. I can't imagine they're filling up 17,000 seats for those anyway.

At the least, I think this deserves the benefit of the doubt. My expectation is for this to be basketball first with the ability to host concerts, WWE, and other events that fit inside the confines. The goal of the Bucks owners is to create the best basketball atmosphere to showcase a team they hope to be making money off of for a long time to come.

Put 10,000 in the lower bowl and darken the upper bowl when games aren't sold out, get the fans on top of the court, and set up the student section to maximize their ability to raise a ruckus and I think we'll be fine.

As mu03eng notes, the Kohl, Assembly Hall, and the Carrier Dome have great atmosphere, as does the Phog, Dean Dome, and Yum! Center, all of which seat over 16,000. It will be down to the design and the crowd. I have confidence in the design, and as long as we're winning, the crowd will be there.

Quote from: Benny B on December 14, 2015, 10:00:23 AM
Football is a completely different animal.  Not to mention that the detriment to the home field/court advantage only arises when you build an arena/stadium for something larger than what it's intended for, e.g. building a basketball arena with hockey capabilities.  Nothing is larger than football, so a football stadium that's designed for multi-purpose isn't a bad thing.  Nothing is smaller than basketball (when it comes to the major sports)... therein lies the problem.

Actually Hockey is smaller capacity than Basketball.   

Quote from: Benny B on December 14, 2015, 09:42:37 AM
I agree that the new arena will be better, but so too is emptying a diaper pail better than having to clean grandma's bedpan.

On a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is a church converted into a gym and places like the Joyce and Cameron are 10's... if the BC is currently about a 2 or 3, the new arena is going to be a 4 or 5.  Sure, that's twice as good if you want to look at it that way, but it's still only half as good as a true basketball arena.

My point is that the second you design an arena with additional utility other than basketball (e.g. concerts, indoor soccer, hockey, Bi-Mon-Sci-Fi-Con, etc.), you drastically diminish the ability to create a "home court" atmosphere the likes of those 10's... sure, the right amount of noise can rock the BC, but 9,000 people at Cameron can make that place twice as unfriendly (to the opposition) as 18,000 people at the BC.  I hope I'm proven wrong, but it doesn't matter what the sight lines or capacity of the new Bucks arena is going to be, as long as it's also designed for Elmo On Ice, it's still going to be a bedpan relative to what a basketball arena should be.

I may also be lost on the point on this conversation. Are we arguing what is best for the program or just completely ignoring all other factors and debating which creates the best basketball atmosphere strictly from a noise/visual aspect? An on-campus basketball arena is not realistic. Sure, the MECCA as mentioned as an idea would be amazing for the final minutes of the game when all you care about is the game, but do you really think alumni and student would be happy at there? First, thousands of people would lose an opportunity at tickets, there would be crappy food and beer options, amenities would be crappy as hell for the players and coaches, and many other disadvantages.

So unless you have $100M to put towards a stadium on campus that is bball only around 12K, I don't really understand you saying the new arena won't help or is a blessing. If that stadium didn't get built and the BC eventually got torn down without the Bucks making improvements, it would absolutely kill the program playing in the arena again.

If anyone hasn't looked at how the Barclays Center and Bankers Life Fieldhouse handle an ice rink, you should.  I assume the new arena will be similar to that.

Quote from: Litehouse on December 14, 2015, 11:05:00 AM
If anyone hasn't looked at how the Barclays Center and Bankers Life Fieldhouse handle an ice rink, you should.  I assume the new arena will be similar to that.

Does the new place even need ice?  They can put Disney on Ice and all that other crap in the Arena.

Other than this year, Disney on Ice has been at UWM Panther Arena.

The new place should be built in case it needs ice, but I would also put all that crap by the Arena.

And this is why putting both places under the same governing body made a whole bunch of sense. 

Quote from: Litehouse on December 14, 2015, 11:05:00 AM
If anyone hasn't looked at how the Barclays Center and Bankers Life Fieldhouse handle an ice rink, you should.  I assume the new arena will be similar to that.

Was there for the legends classic. Gorgeous arena

Quote from: warriorchick on December 14, 2015, 11:06:24 AM
Does the new place even need ice?  They can put Disney on Ice and all that other crap in the Arena.

Watch it! That's a slippery slope

Quote from: keefe on December 14, 2015, 03:30:05 AM
Another great band box home court was Depaul's Alumni Hall. A group of us went there for a Marquette game and it was a tremendous atmosphere. Problem was that they got good and needed more than 6,000 seats so they moved to the Rosemont which was an absolutely terrible place to play basketball.

maybe the worst

Quote from: mu03eng on December 14, 2015, 10:03:20 AM
So what makes a basketball arena (assuming for that purpose only) so intimidating, is it the small size?  Kohl Center isn't small and is multi-purpose and seems to do just fine.  Same with Assembly Hall and the Carrier Dome.  I'm trying to understand stand why a multi-purpose facility automatically can't be intimidating.

You have to have the right combination of the building size, proximity of seats (i.e. students) to the court, and acoustics to create an intimidating atmosphere (which can be replicated in a multi-purpose arena), but the real key in creating an advantage for the home team is in eliminating open space. 

Granted, no college or professional athlete goes into even the most hostile of environments thinking they're going to be accosted by a fan on that day (unless you're playing at the Dunk, I suppose), but psychologically, the "home field/court" advantage plays (or preys) on our primal instincts in two manners, one of which is the "must protect home/family from bear" that provides a mental boost the home team, the other of which is the "must scare bear by looking bigger and louder than really am" that intimidates the visitor.  And frankly, there's nothing more intimidating than having no escape (i.e. turning "fight or flight" into "fight or fright").  While our comfort zones and coping mechanisms widely vary, we humans, by nature, are claustrophobic.  Now again, I'm not saying that any players are consciously thinking that the fans are going to start closing in on them at any moment, but subconsciously, when you look in every one of 360 directions around you and discover that you're completely surrounded by 9,000 fans raucously cheering for the home team, that's going to register somewhere deep in your psyche... whether such affects one's game play can be debated, and even if so, probably depends on the player's preparation/performance.  But that's part of the science behind home field advantage (and it's not just the players you're trying to intimidate, it's the referees - i.e. more favorable whistles - as well).  Although I won't go into much detail here, the elevation:proximity ratio also plays a meaningful factor in preying on the visitors' instincts, and that's something that isn't that meaningful at the BC court when the people sitting eye-level to the players on the court are 50-60 feet away.

Look at the Joyce... every single square foot of that building is either a seat or a "barely-meets-fire-code" aisle.
(http://aviewfrommyseat.com/wallpaper/IrishFan-20110228194232.jpg)

Same thing with Cameron:
(http://imgc.allpostersimages.com/images/P-473-488-90/65/6545/N4W4100Z/posters/lance-king-duke-university-cameron-indoor-stadium.jpg)

The Kohl Center suffers from "Base Line Promenades" and "Bare Corner Syndrome" just like the BC, which is somewhat mitigated by the fact that they have an Olympic sheet of ice (almost) which is wider, and thus more proportional (L:W) to a basketball court than the BC's American sheet which is more narrow and disproportionate.  Nevertheless, they do somewhat make up for that by stacking a third deck on top of the second, unlike the BC which has a single upper deck.  I don't know the exact measurements, but I would guess that a nosebleed seat in the Kohl is only 65-75% of the distance from the court than a nosebleeder in the BC.

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ITJe2cZAO8M/Ts0RkzfGW3I/AAAAAAAAHmc/0h_ZEKIGrIM/s1600/DSC_0019tiny.jpg)

Incidentally, DePaul's issue isn't anything to do with Allstate's design, their issue rests entirely with location and fan support.  Hell, and it pains me to say this, but if you could drop Allstate at 4th and State, I'd take that over the BC any day of the week.  The corners are filled in, the second deck is closer to the floor, though they still have the same problems with space behind the base lines that plague every multi-purpose basketball arena out there... and let's be honest here, from the FT-shooter's perspective, the big heads at the BC (or Allstate) look regular sized (they - and the students - need to be 30-50 feet closer).

(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--SyiS-wtw--/185tb9hsxpn7ajpg.jpg)

When you build your arena larger than it has to be for the game (Piper - I'm referring to a basketball court being smaller than a hockey rink... not seating capacity), you create open space, which takes away a big part of that intimidation factor.  Again, I will concede that you can replicate the noise, acoustics, proximity, etc. in a larger facility, but having that "nowhere to run" element is a big part of the home court advantage.  That's something the new Bucks arena won't have.  I agree that it will be better than the BC just in the fact that it's being designed for basketball, and to the extent the new arena smell draws more MU fans, it will be even better... but the new arena is still going to suffer from BLP's and BCS - that's simply the reality with any multi-purpose arena.

Sure, having to play in a multi- facility sucks, and admittedly, I'm a huge advocate of an on-campus (or near-campus) basketball arena for MU.  That being said, I am looking forward to the new Bucks arena, but unfortunately, I just don't see the gameday experience (for fans and players) being a night-and-day improvement from what we have now.

However, I would be remiss to ignore that having beer at the BC (and, presumably, at the new Bucks arena) makes it better for the fans than almost every college arena out there (that doesn't have beer).

Quote from: Benny B on December 14, 2015, 12:24:51 PM

Granted, no college or professional athlete goes into even the most hostile of environments thinking they're going to be accosted by a fan on that day (unless you're playing at the Dunk, I suppose), but psychologically, the "home field/court" advantage plays (or preys) on our primal instincts in two manners, one of which is the "must protect home/family from bear" that provides a mental boost the home team, the other of which is the "must scare bear by looking bigger and louder than really am" that intimidates the visitor.  And frankly, there's nothing more intimidating than having no escape (i.e. turning "fight or flight" into "fight or fright").  While our comfort zones and coping mechanisms widely vary, we humans, by nature, are claustrophobic.  Now again, I'm not saying that any players are consciously thinking that the fans are going to start closing in on them at any moment, but subconsciously, when you look in every one of 360 directions around you and discover that you're completely surrounded by 9,000 fans raucously cheering for the home team, that's going to register somewhere deep in your psyche... whether such affects one's game play can be debated, and even if so, probably depends on the player's preparation/performance.  But that's part of the science behind home field advantage (and it's not just the players you're trying to intimidate, it's the referees - i.e. more favorable whistles - as well).  Although I won't go into much detail here, the elevation:proximity ratio also plays a meaningful factor in preying on the visitors' instincts, and that's something that isn't that meaningful at the BC court when the people sitting eye-level to the players on the court are 50-60 feet away.

This is all fine and good.  But do you have any evidence that this is the case?  Is there any evidence to suggest that teams with more intimate arenas outperform those without more intimate arenas when you normalize for how good they are otherwise?  You reference the "science behind home field advantage."  Is there such a science?

Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on December 14, 2015, 12:35:46 PM

This is all fine and good.  But do you have any evidence that this is the case?  Is there any evidence to suggest that teams with more intimate arenas outperform those without more intimate arenas when you normalize for how good they are otherwise?  You reference the "science behind home field advantage."  Is there such a science?

Let's not forget that for a brief moment a couple of years ago, we had the longest home-court winning streak in all of D1 basketball. Longer than Kentucky.  Longer than Duke.  Longer than everyone. Not bad for a team that has a supposed sub-par game-day atmosphere.

Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on December 14, 2015, 12:35:46 PM

This is all fine and good.  But do you have any evidence that this is the case?  Is there any evidence to suggest that teams with more intimate arenas outperform those without more intimate arenas when you normalize for how good they are otherwise?  You reference the "science behind home field advantage."  Is there such a science?

And if there is such a science why can't the Bucks tap into that science as part of their arena construction?  Or does Scoop auto correct magic to science?  ;D ;)

Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on December 14, 2015, 12:35:46 PM

This is all fine and good.  But do you have any evidence that this is the case?  Is there any evidence to suggest that teams with more intimate arenas outperform those without more intimate arenas when you normalize for how good they are otherwise?  You reference the "science behind home field advantage."  Is there such a science?

Scorecasting: The Hidden Influences Behind How Sports Are Played and Games Are Won, Moskowitz & Wertheim, 2010.
Find it used from $1.76 on Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Scorecasting-Hidden-Influences-Behind-Sports/dp/0307591794)
In short: in all major professional sports, home teams win 54-69% of the time.  There's no denying the statistics that a home-field advantage exists, but why?  The authors test a lot of theories and find that one, in particular, offers a pretty simple explanation (hint: think zebras).

For further reading, I'm sure one could Google-search "science of home field advantage," but it's the Christmas season, and I'm in a giving mood.  And what luck, the first site I stumbled upon has a pretty decent synopsis, and oh look, not only do they cite Scorecasting, but there's also a gem of a reference to a research paper written by a professor at the University of Bonn (the "Harvard of Germany" a/k/a the "UW of Europe") noting the effect that proximity plays in home-field advantage.

http://freakonomics.com/2011/12/18/football-freakonomics-how-advantageous-is-home-field-advantage-and-why/

Sorry guys, but this isn't some Chicos-style grasping at the straws of existentialism... while there is no firm answer to the question of "why," there's clearly something to be found here when over 60% of NBA contests go to the home team.

Quote from: mu03eng on December 14, 2015, 12:47:22 PM
And if there is such a science why can't the Bucks tap into that science as part of their arena construction?  Or does Scoop auto correct magic to science?  ;D ;)

The Bucks are ignoring this because in professional sports, it's not about winning, it's entirely about economics.  You don't build your stadium/arena to win games, you build them to maximize revenue.  Oh yeah, and politics... because of course, you stand a better chance of gaining public support if your nine-figure playhouse can do more than host a basketball game.


I'm not saying anything at the BC is sub-par... I'm just saying that it could be much better, and the Bucks new arena is not the answer.  Frankly, I'm perfectly content with MU fielding a championship-caliber team that doesn't need to rely on home court advantage, but the same reasons that lend to said advantage also lend itself to the "atmosphere" at the game (even though nothing's going to change my status as a season-ticket holder short of death).

When the Thunderdome opens in 2045*, I look forward to the "damn, Benny was right about a basketball arena 30 years ago... this place is awesome."

* Estimated.  Subject to change.

Quote from: Benny B on December 14, 2015, 03:23:28 PM
Scorecasting: The Hidden Influences Behind How Sports Are Played and Games Are Won, Moskowitz & Wertheim, 2010.
Find it used from $1.76 on Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Scorecasting-Hidden-Influences-Behind-Sports/dp/0307591794)
In short: in all major professional sports, home teams win 54-69% of the time.  There's no denying the statistics that a home-field advantage exists, but why?  The authors test a lot of theories and find that one, in particular, offers a pretty simple explanation (hint: think zebras).

For further reading, I'm sure one could Google-search "science of home field advantage," but it's the Christmas season, and I'm in a giving mood.  And what luck, the first site I stumbled upon has a pretty decent synopsis, and oh look, not only do they cite Scorecasting, but there's also a gem of a reference to a research paper written by a professor at the University of Bonn (the "Harvard of Germany" a/k/a the "UW of Europe") noting the effect that proximity plays in home-field advantage.

http://freakonomics.com/2011/12/18/football-freakonomics-how-advantageous-is-home-field-advantage-and-why/

Sorry guys, but this isn't some Chicos-style grasping at the straws of existentialism... while there is no firm answer to the question of "why," there's clearly something to be found here when over 60% of NBA contests go to the home team.

The Bucks are ignoring this because in professional sports, it's not about winning, it's entirely about economics.  You don't build your stadium/arena to win games, you build them to maximize revenue.  Oh yeah, and politics... because of course, you stand a better chance of gaining public support if your nine-figure playhouse can do more than host a basketball game.


I'm not saying anything at the BC is sub-par... I'm just saying that it could be much better, and the Bucks new arena is not the answer.  Frankly, I'm perfectly content with MU fielding a championship-caliber team that doesn't need to rely on home court advantage, but the same reasons that lend to said advantage also lend itself to the "atmosphere" at the game (even though nothing's going to change my status as a season-ticket holder short of death).

When the Thunderdome opens in 2045*, I look forward to the "damn, Benny was right about a basketball arena 30 years ago... this place is awesome."

* Estimated.  Subject to change.

But again, how do you account for the BC being home to the longest home court winning streak in the NCAA during the 2011-2013 at 27 games?  That shouldn't have happened right?

I guess I don't see Benny's point. We all agree that if we could have steep, compact seats to fit in as many people as possible close to the court....Better yet, have students line entirely around the court 5 deep it would create the best basketball advantage. That would create an intense environment that forces everyone to stand, be close to the action and yell the whole game.

But who would want that? The fans? Besides students paying for cheap tickets, no alumni is going to shell out the dough to attend the game and be uncomfortable the whole time. Compromises have to be made and the powers at be would rather play in a state of the art arena funded by the state and the Bucks, give alumni nice amenities, and stuff the coffers of the basketball program. And I think they made the right call. I would take a profitable program where every student has the advantage to get seats in a bigger arena than playing at a dump like the arena.

Asking for a 13K arena that is single purpose and new is out of the question. It's either the new arena, the MECCA or the AL.  If we are day dreaming, imagine discount beer night for students who attend at tipoff. Just think how packed and intimidating our student section would be then.

Benny. That link attempts to determine the factors that create a home field advantage. But it doesn't address if an arena like Cameron is any more effective than one like the BC.

Quote from: mu03eng on December 14, 2015, 03:45:25 PM
But again, how do you account for the BC being home to the longest home court winning streak in the NCAA during the 2011-2013 at 27 games?  That shouldn't have happened right?

I don't think he is wrong in that a small stadium has an impact. I bet if there was a study that could be done based on number of fans in a square footage there would be some kind of effect show....But we will never know and I doubt the impact is that big. He is just completely ignoring the benefits of playing in brand new NBA arena that is paid for by the state and the Bucks. Did he forget about the advantages of being able to have the cash to go after Shaka and get Wojo. Where does that money come from when we either 1) pay for a new arena or 2) only draw 10k at the MECCA? I would much rather have the cash for a big-time coach, spoil players with luxuries like more TAs/better designed equipment, marketing for recruiting, flying Wojo across the country etc. Those IMO are much bigger impact on on-the-court success versus a little extra motivation from the crowd.

I think I've been drunk 3 times since this thread started.  I win.   ::)

Wrigley is small and compact.  Still waiting for that World Series ring.

The Bucks are currently 8-5 at the BC and 2-10 on the road this season. Maybe opposing teams are just intimidated by how quiet it is and are thrown off by the tunnels behind the hoop.

Kind of funny that we are having this argument on why home court is so advantageous and we completely rule out the obvious considering the game on Saturday night. Best team in the league lost to a below average Bucks team. Did the playoff like crowd help? Sure but there were still a ton of Warriors fans and these are pro athletes so they don't get phased as much. Just look how tired they looked with no legs on their jumpers. They were freaking exhausted from traveling. There is a reason no NBA team has gone undefeated on a 7-game road trip. It has more to do with not being able to go home and sleep in your bed and change in your own lockerroom than anything inside the arena.

Quote from: warriorchick on December 14, 2015, 12:46:21 PM
Longer than everyone

Well, I am an Air Force pilot...

At least we're not UWM

QuoteUW-Milwaukee's men's basketball team has played three home games so far this season and has drawn 5,565 fans.

That's not a per-game average. It's the three-game total.

Ticket prices start at $10 and top out at $20 (not including courtside seats) for games at the UW-Milwaukee Panther Arena. If there's a better ticket for a sports event in downtown Milwaukee, I'd like to see it. And frankly, the Panther Arena is a better place to watch a basketball game than is the BMO Harris Bradley Center.

The Panthers are 8-3, have beaten the University of Wisconsin and on Sunday set a school scoring record in a 125-74 victory over Judson. They've won four straight games and are 3-0 at home, despite playing in an arena that typically is about 80% empty.

The MECCA was and is a dump. However, turning down the lights with the cloud of cigarette smoke hanging over the court created an exciting environment. Like our jersey designs, the NCAA has banned about 75% of the hijinks that we got away with like the toilet paper fireworks, the band playing during the game action, our mascot, unsportsmanlike chants, poking a drum stick into the back of the inbounder, air horns or whistles, climbing on the scorer's table after a victory on the road.  A televised game was a rarity and was treated as a Super Bowl. 

Everyone I bring to the BC loves the whole game experience.  They cannot believe it is being called obsolete.  Times have changed and it is more about the fan experience as every game is on national tv.  Hell, MU couldn't give away tickets to The Al game a year ago.

Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on December 15, 2015, 07:46:38 AM
Like our jersey designs, the NCAA has banned about 75% of the hijinks that we got away with like the toilet paper fireworks, the band playing during the game action, our mascot, unsportsmanlike chants, poking a drum stick into the back of the inbounder, air horns or whistles, climbing on the scorer's table after a victory on the road. 

They f#cked up perfection, man...

Quote from: mu03eng on December 14, 2015, 03:45:25 PM
But again, how do you account for the BC being home to the longest home court winning streak in the NCAA during the 2011-2013 at 27 games?  That shouldn't have happened right?

Because we had a damn good team that played a lot of damn poor teams at home.

The point is that the new Bucks arena isn't going to be much of an improvement from the BC, relative to the improvement of going to a basketball arena.  Again, I make no secret about my preference for an on-campus arena, but I also recognize the economics of the situation which makes such a scenario a very poor trade-off.

Bottom line: The new Bucks arena is going to be better than the BC - I don't think any of us disagree on that point.  My ultimate point is, quite simply, that it's not going to be great.  Personally, I believe that the atmosphere and experience of basketball suffers when the game is played in a multi-purpose arena; that's merely my opinion drawn from myexperience of having seen basketball in a variety of different venues -- everything from the aforementioned church-to-gym metamorphosis (I didn't make that up) to the Humpty Bump (or Dump, depending on your locale of origin).  In time, I'm sure some will agree just as I'm sure that others will never agree... but that's not to say every one of us isn't going to enjoy being in the new Bucks arena; however, we shouldn't walk into the new arena in a few years thinking there's a light shining down from the heavens (it's probably just one of those new LED bulbs if there is).

In other words, just because we have hope and dreams doesn't mean that having to "settle" for something less is a bad thing, especially when it's better than what we had; but it also doesn't mean we should give up our dreams.  Fortunately, I'm young enough to still have an iota of said hope that MU will see an on-campus arena in my lifetime.

Quote from: Benny B on December 15, 2015, 01:56:01 PM
Because we had a damn good team that played a lot of damn poor teams at home.

The point is that the new Bucks arena isn't going to be much of an improvement from the BC, relative to the improvement of going to a basketball arena.  Again, I make no secret about my preference for an on-campus arena, but I also recognize the economics of the situation which makes such a scenario a very poor trade-off.

Bottom line: The new Bucks arena is going to be better than the BC - I don't think any of us disagree on that point.  My ultimate point is, quite simply, that it's not going to be great.  Personally, I believe that the atmosphere and experience of basketball suffers when the game is played in a multi-purpose arena; that's merely my opinion drawn from myexperience of having seen basketball in a variety of different venues -- everything from the aforementioned church-to-gym metamorphosis (I didn't make that up) to the Humpty Bump (or Dump, depending on your locale of origin).  In time, I'm sure some will agree just as I'm sure that others will never agree... but that's not to say every one of us isn't going to enjoy being in the new Bucks arena; however, we shouldn't walk into the new arena in a few years thinking there's a light shining down from the heavens (it's probably just one of those new LED bulbs if there is).

In other words, just because we have hope and dreams doesn't mean that having to "settle" for something less is a bad thing, especially when it's better than what we had; but it also doesn't mean we should give up our dreams.  Fortunately, I'm young enough to still have an iota of said hope that MU will see an on-campus arena in my lifetime.

I can kill your dreams of an on-campus arena real fast.....if there is an on campus arena for Marquette only, there will be no beer/mixed drinks for sale at the arena.  That will kill any benefit of a home crowd for sure.

Quote from: mu03eng on December 15, 2015, 02:13:38 PM
I can kill your dreams of an on-campus arena real fast.....if there is an on campus arena for Marquette only, there will be no beer/mixed drinks for sale at the arena.  That will kill any benefit of a home crowd for sure.

Says who?  If it's me putting up $100M to build the Thunderdome, that place is going to have the best draft systems known to man.  If you're referring to the NCAA rule, you can always create an exclave.  Or build it across the street.  Or put the ownership into a separate LLC like Wal-Mart does. 

It was alcohol (beer, actually) that inspired many of the basic inventions and necessities we have today (e.g. mathematics, writing, land surveying, Pasteurization, modern medicine, mass production, etc.), I don't see why someone couldn't figure something out how MU could serve beer at an "on-campus" arena.

It's not a blanket NCAA rule that on-campus arenas can't sell alcohol. The only mandate they have is that NCAA Tournament events are dry.

Quote from: Benny B on December 15, 2015, 02:31:41 PM
Says who?  If it's me putting up $100M to build the Thunderdome, that place is going to have the best draft systems known to man.  If you're referring to the NCAA rule, you can always create an exclave.  Or build it across the street.  Or put the ownership into a separate LLC like Wal-Mart does. 

It was alcohol (beer, actually) that inspired many of the basic inventions and necessities we have today (e.g. mathematics, writing, land surveying, Pasteurization, modern medicine, mass production, etc.), I don't see why someone couldn't figure something out how MU could serve beer at an "on-campus" arena.

Says Marquette.....there is no way they will support a stand alone, on-campus arena that sells alcohol.  There are reasons why places like Hegs, Gloco Morro, etc no longer exist around campus

Quote from: mu03eng on December 15, 2015, 02:56:07 PM
Says Marquette.....there is no way they will support a stand alone, on-campus arena that sells alcohol.  There are reasons why places like Hegs, Gloco Morro, etc no longer exist around campus

I don't think you can equate alcohol served at arena concessions with a bar. 

Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on December 15, 2015, 07:46:38 AM
The MECCA was and is a dump. However, turning down the lights with the cloud of cigarette smoke hanging over the court created an exciting environment. Like our jersey designs, the NCAA has banned about 75% of the hijinks that we got away with like the toilet paper fireworks, the band playing during the game action, our mascot, unsportsmanlike chants, poking a drum stick into the back of the inbounder, air horns or whistles, climbing on the scorer's table after a victory on the road.  A televised game was a rarity and was treated as a Super Bowl. 

Everyone I bring to the BC loves the whole game experience.  They cannot believe it is being called obsolete.  Times have changed and it is more about the fan experience as every game is on national tv.  Hell, MU couldn't give away tickets to The Al game a year ago.

That was really, really fun.  We started at Chili, walked across campus for the game, and then back to Caffrey's to celebrate the victory.

Quote from: jsglow on December 15, 2015, 09:26:19 PM
That was really, really fun.  We started at Chili, walked across campus for the game, and then back to Caffrey's to celebrate the victory.

Yup, that was the night I learned the dangers of rail tequila.

Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on December 15, 2015, 03:56:36 PM

I don't think you can equate alcohol served at arena concessions with a bar.

Correct, but we already have an on campus arena that they don't allow alcohol at either (Al).  I don't see Marquette in its current direction allowing alcohol at an on-campus arena but I suppose that is opinion and not fact.

Quote from: ChitownSpaceForRent on December 15, 2015, 09:43:14 PM
Yup, that was the night I learned the dangers of rail tequila.

I think I just threw up in my mouth reading this. The thought alone....

Quote from: mu03eng on December 15, 2015, 10:24:20 PM
Correct, but we already have an on campus arena that they don't allow alcohol at either (Al).  I don't see Marquette in its current direction allowing alcohol at an on-campus arena but I suppose that is opinion and not fact.

But we do have an on campus "arena" that is fully stocked with alcohol. It's called the Jes Res.

Quote from: ChitownSpaceForRent on December 15, 2015, 10:28:00 PM
But we do have an on campus "arena" that is fully stocked with alcohol. It's called the Jes Res.

The O'Brien Jesuit Residence, officially now.

Quote from: mu03eng on December 15, 2015, 02:13:38 PM
.....if there is an on campus arena for Marquette only, there will be no beer/mixed drinks for sale at the arena.  That will kill any benefit of a home crowd for sure.

I can assure you that for 4 years I enjoyed at least 6 PBRs or Dog Styles at every Marquette home game and never once subjected myself to the outrageous prices at the concession stands!

Quote from: ChitownSpaceForRent on December 15, 2015, 10:28:00 PM
But we do have an on campus "arena" that is fully stocked with alcohol. It's called the Jes Res.

Well aware of that.....was part of a campus energy study my freshmen year in CoE....building that used the most energy on campus at the time...old JesRes with the basement walk in cooler and all the TVs, etc.

Having said that the Jesuits are more of do as I say not as I do type of group, IMO

Quote from: mu03eng on December 16, 2015, 08:46:07 AM
Well aware of that.....was part of a campus energy study my freshmen year in CoE....building that used the most energy on campus at the time...old JesRes with the basement walk in cooler and all the TVs, etc.

Having said that the Jesuits are more of do as I say not as I do type of group, IMO

I don't recall that in terms of drinking...

Quote from: keefe on December 15, 2015, 11:00:26 PM
I can assure you that for 4 years I enjoyed at least 6 PBRs or Dog Styles at every Marquette home game and never once subjected myself to the outrageous prices at the concession stands!

That's great, if I'm a student.  I'm now a 35 year old dude who just wants to pay for a good overpriced tap beer when I go to a game without having to crotch a bunch of Ice Houses.

Quote from: warriorchick on December 16, 2015, 08:47:41 AM
I don't recall that in terms of drinking...

OK Jesuits in conjunction with super paranoid administration types.  ;D

Quote from: We R Final Four on December 15, 2015, 10:27:36 PM
I think I just threw up in my mouth reading this. The thought alone....

I know.  I personally witnessed chitown, my own son, and a few others partake.  Think I told chick that it was time to go as the boys were embarking on a 'long night'.

For Christ's sake, people.... we're a CATHOLIC university, not BYU or Unidurkisty of Mosul.

https://www.youtube.com/v/4lWC30_pV_w