I put this in the Georgetown thread but I thought it was worthy of its own discussion.
--------------------
All NCAA D1 has approx 5,000 games a year. 225 to 250 neutral court games.
http://www.ncaa.org/championships/statistics/ncaa-mens-basketball-attendance
http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/m_basketball_RB/Reports/attend/2015.pdf
Year All D1 games Neutral court games
2015 4,754 6,381
2014 4,817 6,854
2013 4,921 7,091
2012 4,994 7,219
2011 5,025 7,610
2010 5,038 7,551
2009 5,185 7,213
2008 5,325 7,379
2007 5,327 7,968
Since 2011 all college basketball has lost 11% of its attendance, 20% for neutral court games! Has the new Big East, in total, declined by more than 11%?
Why? I think three reasons:
1) proliferation of HD TVs and HD broadcasts since 2007
2) New sports contracts and TV networks so now virtually every game is broadcast nationally (in HD)
3) John Calipari and Coach K. The one and done model is hurting the casual viewers interest. Once they learn who the stars are, they leave. No continuity from year to year for the causal fan.
Yippee! Now we're getting each new Heisenberg response turned into its own thread!
The attached shows MU has done much better than the average D1 school. All its loss in attendance came last year, thanks to its disastrous record. MU worlds and worlds better than Georgetown.
Quote from: Heisenberg on December 20, 2015, 11:41:15 AM
I put this in the Georgetown thread but I thought it was worthy of its own discussion.
--------------------
All NCAA D1 has approx 5,000 games a year. 225 to 250 neutral court games.
http://www.ncaa.org/championships/statistics/ncaa-mens-basketball-attendance
http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/m_basketball_RB/Reports/attend/2015.pdf
Year All D1 games Neutral court games
2015 4,754 6,381
2014 4,817 6,854
2013 4,921 7,091
2012 4,994 7,219
2011 5,025 7,610
2010 5,038 7,551
2009 5,185 7,213
2008 5,325 7,379
2007 5,327 7,968
Since 2011 all college basketball has lost 11% of its attendance, 20% for neutral court games! Has the new Big East, in total, declined by more than 11%?
Why? I think three reasons:
1) proliferation of HD TVs and HD broadcasts since 2007
2) New sports contracts and TV networks so now virtually every game is broadcast nationally (in HD)
3) John Calipari and Coach K. The one and done model is hurting the casual viewers interest. Once they learn who the stars are, they leave. No continuity from year to year for the causal fan.
You answered the question--but then excluded it from your possibilities. its the proliferation of neutral court games due to the 2006 rule change for exempt tournaments.
Your estimate of 225 to 250 neutral site games vastly understates the total games added from these exempt tournaments.
http://www.bloggingthebracket.com/2013/12/2/5166356/2015-16-college-basketball-early-season-tournaments-events-MTE
First, just because they're played at campus sites doesn't mean they're going to attract above-average attendance. IUPUI and Belmont were never going to increase MU's average, and given the proliferation of teams that already average sub 5000--even before adding a couple of additional "tournament" campus site games, its no wonder average attendance overall is pulled down.
Second, aside from Maui and a few others, in many cases the entire brackets are lousy. Take a look at the "Global Sports Classic in Las Vegas.
Third, many of the fans of these teams don't travel. Do you really think Southern or Eastern Illinois sent a large contingent for their games against Grand Canyon or Marshall?
Fourth many venues are crackerjack Lahaina Civic Center has a capacity of 2400 for the Maui Invitational. Others are so hard to get to or have expensive housing (Orlando during Thanksgiving week isn't cheap, and NYC is always expensive). Or you may have to buy tickets to all games--not just your team.
Finally, you're sharing the overall NCAA stats, which reflect the 20 or so additional NCAA teams added since 2005. Since most of them when added have poor performance and low attendance, you're going to see the average attendance decline. For a true comparison, you'd have to exclude any team that wasn't playing NCAA D1 in 2006.
Number of D1 neutral court games
2015 = 282
2014 = 251
2013 = 234
2012 = 230
2011 = 235
2010 = 221
2009 = 233
2008 = 217
2007 = 224
You have a point over the last two years as the number of neutral court games is up significantly.
But even adjusting for the potential that they are played in smaller arena and over-saturating the market, attendance at neutral court games is down 20% since 2007, adding 15 or 20 more games does not explain this big a drop in the average.
I started the data above in 2007 so they are post the 2005 increase in D1 by 20 and the 2006 neutral court change you note. And the data shows consistent drop every year.
The larger point is attendance for college basketball is declining, down 11% since 2007. Keep this in mind the next time someone says BE attendance is down (suggesting the league is a failure). It is down across the board , the question is if a particular team or league down more than the average?
In the case of MU (table above) they are down far less than the average. In the case of Georgetown they are down far more than the average (39%).
As the relative cost of tickets have been increasing (cost of tickets, donation, parking, time) when compared to not having tickets (save money, watch games on television, record them to watch later), it makes perfect sense that attendance decreases.
This isn't necessarily a problem if the television contracts bring in more revenue than that attendance that is lost.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on December 20, 2015, 02:46:42 PM
As the relative cost of tickets have been increasing (cost of tickets, donation, parking, time) when compared to not having tickets (save money, watch games on television, record them to watch later), it makes perfect sense that attendance decreases.
This isn't necessarily a problem if the television contracts bring in more revenue than that attendance that is lost.
+1
This idea was started by a post that said BE attendance was down since the league revamped three years ago. The implication was the league was failing simply because attendance was down.
Falling attendance is happening for these reasons, which are largely in agreement with the reasons in the first post, and it's happening everywhere.
In fact the new stadium in Milwaukee is a recognition of this. It will have a smaller capacity that the BC. And, get ready for tickets to cost upwards of $75 to $100/game (best seats). Too much, that's ok, you can watch it at home as that is where the money is made. Total attendance is becoming less and less relevant and less and less meaningful a measure.
BE attendance is probably falling also because they play in huge arenas compared to the sizes of their fan base. Demand for UW tickets can go down, but since their fan base is larger, you still have plenty of fans to fill up the Kohl Center despite its size. It would be interesting to see how many UW season tickets are not renewed over the next couple of years should their performance fall off - and how many of those tickets are purchased by someone else.
The Big East is just fine in this regard.
Quote from: Heisenberg on December 20, 2015, 11:41:15 AM
I put this in the Georgetown thread but I thought it was worthy of its own discussion.
--------------------
All NCAA D1 has approx 5,000 games a year. 225 to 250 neutral court games.
http://www.ncaa.org/championships/statistics/ncaa-mens-basketball-attendance
http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/m_basketball_RB/Reports/attend/2015.pdf
Year All D1 games Neutral court games
2015 4,754 6,381
2014 4,817 6,854
2013 4,921 7,091
2012 4,994 7,219
2011 5,025 7,610
2010 5,038 7,551
2009 5,185 7,213
2008 5,325 7,379
2007 5,327 7,968
Since 2011 all college basketball has lost 11% of its attendance, 20% for neutral court games! Has the new Big East, in total, declined by more than 11%?
Why? I think three reasons:
1) proliferation of HD TVs and HD broadcasts since 2007
2) New sports contracts and TV networks so now virtually every game is broadcast nationally (in HD)
3) John Calipari and Coach K. The one and done model is hurting the casual viewers interest. Once they learn who the stars are, they leave. No continuity from year to year for the causal fan.
You're not really blaming Calipari and K for 1-and-dones, are you?
NFL attendance is down, NCAA Football attendance is down too. Maybe it's more to do with people preferring to stay home.
Quote from: LAZER on December 20, 2015, 10:43:28 PM
NFL attendance is down, NCAA Football attendance is down too. Maybe it's more to do with people preferring to stay home.
10 years ago I had a crappy 27 inch console TV and now I have a 50 inch HD TV That I paid nearly the same as the crappy 27 incher. 10-15 games available on a college football Saturday. NFL Sunday Ticket and Red Zone on Sunday. No worrying about parking, traffic, dealing with idiots, overpriced food and drinks. The at home experience has improved so much in these few years. Its hard sometimes to compete with that, especially in the dead of winter in Milwaukee.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on December 20, 2015, 02:46:42 PM
As the relative cost of tickets have been increasing (cost of tickets, donation, parking, time) when compared to not having tickets (save money, watch games on television, record them to watch later), it makes perfect sense that attendance decreases.
This isn't necessarily a problem if the television contracts bring in more revenue than that attendance that is lost.
I think you've hit on something here. I myself have started to think that the product is a bit overpriced when one considers the weak cupcake schedule, the somewhat less impressive BEast, and the comfort associated with my 55 incher HD. But what got me even more irked this year (mind you, I fully understand the rationale) is that MU Athletics hasn't lifted a finger for long time season ticket holders while at the same time coming up with super exciting promos for the more marginal fans to get butts in the seats. Examples include the 'Young alum free beer' and the '$77 all conference games' promos. Look, I'm all for those promos and I fully get the fact that the guy who drops $50K at the Blue/Gold auction (you think I'm kidding?) gets breakfast in bed from Wojo but I do think that we need to work on 'appreciation' and 'value' for the long time regular guy season ticket holder.
Quote from: LAZER on December 20, 2015, 10:43:28 PM
NFL attendance is down, NCAA Football attendance is down too. Maybe it's more to do with people preferring to stay home.
Is the bubble starting to burst? Are they pricing common fans out of the games?
The only Packers/Bucks/Brewers/MU games I attend are on freebies. The game experience is not worth $250 to go to Lambeau - even as much as I enjoy going once or twice a year.
I don't mind spending $200 - $300 on a concert I wanna see, but I can watch any game in the comfort of my home, hang with whatever friends I invite over at home and eat whatever I want at home.
The only time I will ever pay to see a game live is Playoff time.
Quote from: jsglow on December 21, 2015, 07:10:01 AM
But what got me even more irked this year (mind you, I fully understand the rationale) is that MU Athletics hasn't lifted a finger for long time season ticket holders while at the same time coming up with super exciting promos for the more marginal fans to get butts in the seats. Examples include the 'Young alum free beer' and the '$77 all conference games' promos. Look, I'm all for those promos and I fully get the fact that the guy who drops $50K at the Blue/Gold auction (you think I'm kidding?) gets breakfast in bed from Wojo but I do think that we need to work on 'appreciation' and 'value' for the long time regular guy season ticket holder.
Ya didn't like the Christmas card?
Quote from: jsglow on December 21, 2015, 07:10:01 AM
I think you've hit on something here. I myself have started to think that the product is a bit overpriced when one considers the weak cupcake schedule, the somewhat less impressive BEast, and the comfort associated with my 55 incher HD. But what got me even more irked this year (mind you, I fully understand the rationale) is that MU Athletics hasn't lifted a finger for long time season ticket holders while at the same time coming up with super exciting promos for the more marginal fans to get butts in the seats. Examples include the 'Young alum free beer' and the '$77 all conference games' promos. Look, I'm all for those promos and I fully get the fact that the guy who drops $50K at the Blue/Gold auction (you think I'm kidding?) gets breakfast in bed from Wojo but I do think that we need to work on 'appreciation' and 'value' for the long time regular guy season ticket holder.
What you are saying basically is the Law of Supply & Demand. I think Marquette and the BC have tried new things this season to improve the game experience: The confetti launch, steam shooters, wifi, moving the students closer, slightly improved game times, food and beer choices and gathering places. Yes even the flag. Heck, even the metal detectors have gone smoothly. The Miller New Alum section was a credit from Learfield and a great idea to get the new grads to the games who are saddled with debt.
Under the previous regime, it was all about no and control whether with the coach, students and donors, the yearly seat selection process. They even eliminated the hard copy of the media guide and limited giveaways to cards. They eliminated the tee shirt gun to be PC. They alienated many as they took the F out of fun.
For season tickets, I view it as a long term investment. Some years are good, some bad or disappointing. Last year was the worst season in 50 years, so not a bad record over the long term.
That said, the schedule is weak and while other BE schools are scheduling rivals who left, MU schedules Stetson. I think another factor is a large segment of long time ticket holders hitting retirement age with fixed incomes. It is easier for them to stay at home as well. A lot of empties in the lower bowl and the reseating process has caused them to rethink their investment.
One note on the Crean years: There were a lot of free ticket giveaways to groups.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on December 21, 2015, 08:03:06 AMFor season tickets, I view it as a long term investment. Some years are good, some bad or disappointing. Last year was the worst season in 50 years, so not a bad record over the long term.
Agreed completely, which is why this season's schedule is so frustrating to me. Okay, last year's results sucked, fine, but I don't want to give up my season tickets because I lose those points and don't want to stop my B&G donations for the same reason. To ultimately get the seats I want, I need to keep up with my tickets and donations at my current level. For my investment to pay off in the future, I can't stop supporting at my current level now.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on December 21, 2015, 08:03:06 AMThat said, the schedule is weak and while other BE schools are scheduling rivals who left, MU schedules Stetson. I think another factor is a large segment of long time ticket holders hitting retirement age with fixed incomes. It is easier for them to stay at home as well. A lot of empties in the lower bowl and the reseating process has caused them to rethink their investment.
And this is what makes it so hard to vote with the wallet. I've been a STH for about 5-6 years now. I am just now able to afford the lower bowl, and knowing that the increased donation from lower bowl tickets will help my points accrue faster, the long-term aspect of this makes it hard for me to give them up. MU schedules a crappy bunch of teams, I'm still going to make my B&G donations and buy season tickets because I plan to have them for at least the next 18 years. You don't get into the sweater vest sections by giving up your tickets 25% of the way into the process.
UNC-Charlotte played at Appalachian State on Saturday.
App State students are on break, and the App State football team was playing in a televised bowl game at the same time. Plus, App State is a football school and not a basketball school; fans will travel from Charlotte or Raleigh to Boone a couple hours away to watch a football game but don't give a rat's rump about the basketball team. And UNCC has been ignored for years now.
Announced attendance: 376.
Why do you think the Bucks (and by extension MU) were desperate for a new stadium. They need to make the entire experience a"an event." That way they can charge you $30 for upper bowl seats to Chicago State!
Quote from: Heisenberg on December 20, 2015, 11:41:15 AM
Why? I think three reasons:
1) proliferation of HD TVs and HD broadcasts since 2007
2) New sports contracts and TV networks so now virtually every game is broadcast nationally (in HD)
3) John Calipari and Coach K. The one and done model is hurting the casual viewers interest. Once they learn who the stars are, they leave. No continuity from year to year for the causal fan.
You also have to take into account that many traditional rivalries have been destroyed due to constant realignment. Maybe as more of these rivalries are rebuilt during non-conference it will help, but who in the Big 10 really wants to go see their team play Rutgers and Nebraska?
i.e. Butler in 3 conferences in last 5 years, Maryland to Big 10, etc.
Quote from: brandx on December 21, 2015, 07:55:06 AM
The only Packers/Bucks/Brewers/MU games I attend are on freebies. The game experience is not worth $250 to go to Lambeau - even as much as I enjoy going once or twice a year.
The only time I will ever pay to see a game live is Playoff time.
You won't ever pay for a Marquette ticket?
I get that Lambeau is very expensive, but you can get to MU games relatively cheaply.
Quote from: We R Final Four on December 21, 2015, 09:50:05 AM
You won't ever pay for a Marquette ticket?
I get that Lambeau is very expensive, but you can get to MU games relatively cheaply.
Until the new stadium, yes. Once the new stadium is built, prices will go higher.
Quote from: Skitch on December 21, 2015, 04:40:40 AM
10 years ago I had a crappy 27 inch console TV and now I have a 50 inch HD TV That I paid nearly the same as the crappy 27 incher. 10-15 games available on a college football Saturday. NFL Sunday Ticket and Red Zone on Sunday. No worrying about parking, traffic, dealing with idiots, overpriced food and drinks. The at home experience has improved so much in these few years. Its hard sometimes to compete with that, especially in the dead of winter in Milwaukee.
This captures it for me. How do you compete with these? And the best part is if the game is a Stinker, I push a button and I'm somewhere else.
I would guess as attendance goes down, TV viewing goes up and that makes Ad sponsors happy.
As I get older I find it more and more difficult to get jacked up to go to 95% of the games. For years MU games was my favorite winter social time, love seeing old friends at halftime and the bad games did not matter that much. Now, with bad games on TV I find myself needing to convince myself why I should go to the game.
The game tonight is a perfect example, it is early start time and BC very close to my office and I want to see Henry play as much as possible in MU uniform and am on the fence. The world has changed so much in last ten years and I see attendance shrinking at all sports in the future. It really is sad because my parents would drive from Tosa to Mecca in a snowstorm to watch MU blow Xavier out on Thursday night and I struggle to make three minute ride to BC on warm December night.
Quote from: Heisenberg on December 21, 2015, 10:22:18 AM
Until the new stadium, yes. Once the new stadium is built, prices will go higher.
Perhaps. But the laws of economics do work. Raise the ticket/donation price too high and watch attendance plummet.
Personally I think MU is already bumping up against the upper limit of what most folks will tolerate. Reminded by this thread to put our tickets for tonight in my wallet, it reads $23.76. We all know tonight's game could be purchased on stubhub for $5 and I'm recalling that my own daughter's seat cost less than the beer they give her at the game. Now admittedly, our seats are exactly where we want them but it's still an investment that seemingly fewer and fewer people are making.
I also agree that they've improved the game-day experience with the cannons, etc. and we really do enjoy attending even with the distance we travel but there's a limit out there somewhere.
Funny, as we were silently witnessing the Iowa debacle, I told chick we were headed back to the $125ers next year where we started several years ago (originally at $99). I sincerely hope this year's result and prospects for next year don't force me to revisit that conversation over Memorial Day weekend.
Anyway, if you want to buy chick a beer tonight it'll be easy to find us.
I don't think anyone has hit what is really happening.
The proliferation of social media has replaced our social systems of community building with artificial ones. I really believe it's that simple.
Humans re-think live events as somewhere to come together with a community and build a social system because it's done online.
Same reason no one goes to high school reunions anymore.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on December 21, 2015, 08:03:06 AM
That said, the schedule is weak and while other BE schools are scheduling rivals who left, MU schedules Stetson.
No doubt we've spilled a lot of pixels bemoaning the 300+ RPI teams on MU's OOC this year, so I won't belabor that point, but the claim that "other BE schools are scheduling rivals who left" is an exaggeration at best.
Thus far, there have been eight "Old Big East vs. New Big East" games on the schedule this year.
St. John's over Rutgers
Seton Hall over Rutgers
Georgetown over Syracuse
Butler over Cincinnati
Xavier over Cincinnati
Providence over Boston College
Butler over Miami (FL)
St. John's over Syracuse
As you can see, of the eight games, 3 of them involved either Xavier or Butler, the Big East newbies. One of the three Xavier/Butler games was a pre-existing annual nonconference rivalry (Cincinnati-Xavier), and another was a tournament game in Puerto Rico (Butler-Miami).
Of the remaining 5 games involving teams who participated in the Big East Superconference era, two games were scheduled against Rutgers (Including St. John's-Rutgers, which was part of the Gavitt Games). The other three (St. Johns-Cuse, BC-PC, and GTown-Cuse) have over 30 years of history behind them. Do we really miss the Marquette-West Virginia days that much?
There are only a handful of Old Big East vs. New Big East games left on the docket. At best, they're a mixed bag in terms of watchability.
12/22/15 South Florida at Seton Hall
1/23/16 Georgetown at UConn
Quote from: Heisenberg on December 21, 2015, 10:22:18 AM
Until the new stadium, yes. Once the new stadium is built, prices will go higher.
More reason for the cheapskates to go now.
I agree with several of the stated reasons for declining attendance - easy HDTV availability of most games, ticket costs, etc. And I also get that it probably isn't a deal-breaker (financially) for many schools, as they get more money from TV revenues than fans in seats.
But when you put the factors together - harder to get fans in person, schools less dependent on fans in seats - it begs the question of why teams don't simply cut prices. They're getting most of their money from TV anyway, so why wouldn't they rather have 18K fans who paid an average of about $15 than 10K fans who paid an average of $30. There may be an overall hit in gate revenues, but again, gate revenues aren't driving the bus. And to the extent schools are dependent on in-person expenditures, the slight loss on ticket sales might very well be offset by concessions and other revenue sources.
Some of us season ticket holders have been around long enough that we'll keep buying regardless. But it seems lower ticket prices might get more casual fans to pony up.
Quote from: Buzz Williams' Spillproof Chiclets Cup on December 21, 2015, 10:43:21 AM
Do we really miss the Marquette-West Virginia days that much?
Country Roads, baby. Country Roads.
Quote from: GooooMarquette on December 21, 2015, 11:00:33 AM
I agree with several of the stated reasons for declining attendance - easy HDTV availability of most games, ticket costs, etc. And I also get that it probably isn't a deal-breaker (financially) for many schools, as they get more money from TV revenues than fans in seats.
But when you put the factors together - harder to get fans in person, schools less dependent on fans in seats - it begs the question of why teams don't simply cut prices. They're getting most of their money from TV anyway, so why wouldn't they rather have 18K fans who paid an average of about $15 than 10K fans who paid an average of $30. There may be an overall hit in gate revenues, but again, gate revenues aren't driving the bus. And to the extent schools are dependent on in-person expenditures, the slight loss on ticket sales might very well be offset by concessions and other revenue sources.
Some of us season ticket holders have been around long enough that we'll keep buying regardless. But it seems lower ticket prices might get more casual fans to pony up.
I'd like to see cross-sections of the season ticketholders in 2007 and 2015... my guess is that you have fewer folks in the 25-35 cohort today than you had eight years ago, yet all of the other age cohorts are probably similar.
Bottom line -- the new generation of alumni simply don't care about sports as much their predecessors. And I agree it has a good deal to do with social media.
Quote from: mujivitz06 on December 21, 2015, 10:41:59 AM
I don't think anyone has hit what is really happening.
The proliferation of social media has replaced our social systems of community building with artificial ones. I really believe it's that simple.
Humans re-think live events as somewhere to come together with a community and build a social system because it's done online.
Same reason no one goes to high school reunions anymore.
I've thought about that issue too. However, a big part of social media is also "checking in" or posting selfies of you and your friends at an event. I think MU is trying to tap into that, but there's still a long way to go. Part of it is making the games a "big event" worth showing your friends you were there. Obviously every game won't be at that level, but some will, and the ticket office needs to leverage the demand for those "big event" games into season tickets.
Quote from: GooooMarquette on December 21, 2015, 11:00:33 AM
I agree with several of the stated reasons for declining attendance - easy HDTV availability of most games, ticket costs, etc. And I also get that it probably isn't a deal-breaker (financially) for many schools, as they get more money from TV revenues than fans in seats.
But when you put the factors together - harder to get fans in person, schools less dependent on fans in seats - it begs the question of why teams don't simply cut prices. They're getting most of their money from TV anyway, so why wouldn't they rather have 18K fans who paid an average of about $15 than 10K fans who paid an average of $30. There may be an overall hit in gate revenues, but again, gate revenues aren't driving the bus. And to the extent schools are dependent on in-person expenditures, the slight loss on ticket sales might very well be offset by concessions and other revenue sources.
Some of us season ticket holders have been around long enough that we'll keep buying regardless. But it seems lower ticket prices might get more casual fans to pony up.
Several professional sports teams have been pitched on the idea of having
no ticket prices. Put all of them on an auction site, the team is a seller of all tickets. No minimum price. You can bid on the Jack Nickelson (or Dick Strong) court side seats all the way to the last row of the upper deck. You can pay a $1000 if you want t sit next to Lovell or $1 to get into the stadium near the top of the last row.
Every study done said they will make more money under this model than their current model of printed prices on tickets. Teams will make more on the good seats, and less on the cheap seats, but more money overall than printing prices on the tickets.
(Before you ask, the model says you can bid on season tickets, or any combination of groups of tickets you want. Further, you can re-list your tickets on the same site to resell. The idea is to create a liquid market for tickets, not unlike the NYSE creates a liquid market for shares of companies. And this model maximizes profits for the teams selling tickets and offers buyers an unlimited set of possibilities to get the seats you want for the price they want. It eliminates Stub Hub and the scalper standing outside the stadium allowing the team to capture that profit. )
Yet no one really does this. Why? They are afraid to make the leap. They think the market is incredibly inefficient. They think if they did not print a ticket price, every ticket sells for $2 for all seats and they lose tons of money. This has in smaller scales and other countries and it never happens. The Airlines even do this with many of their unsold tickets and they always wind up making money. (Note, the professional sports leagues, they agreed every-team will have to do it or none will do it. So the Packers will not do this, it would have to be the NFL, including the Packers.)
I think this is your answer to ticket prices.
ADDED LATER
A follow-up to this business model is it also "fixes" the OOC schedule. Instead of paying teams to play us (aka "buy games') offer them a percentage of the gate. A team like Monmouth, that knows they have an "interesting" team this year will look to maximize their profit by looking at a team like MU that consistently draws in the top 15 of the nation (excluding last year's disaster) and play in a 19k stadium. They will be interested in playing for more money than a Chicago State would get.
In other words, once ticket prices are a liquid and efficient market, you can then make OOC games a liquid and efficient market as well.
The number of neutral court games is up significantly, which nobody is playing H/H anymore. Many don't want season-tickets, just tickets to conference games.
Quote from: Skitch on December 21, 2015, 04:40:40 AM
10 years ago I had a crappy 27 inch console TV and now I have a 50 inch HD TV That I paid nearly the same as the crappy 27 incher. 10-15 games available on a college football Saturday. NFL Sunday Ticket and Red Zone on Sunday. No worrying about parking, traffic, dealing with idiots, overpriced food and drinks. The at home experience has improved so much in these few years. Its hard sometimes to compete with that, especially in the dead of winter in Milwaukee.
College football Saturday there is close to 40 games on national TV. Your right much easy to just stay at home. I do with football, but go to all the bb games.
Quote from: Litehouse on December 21, 2015, 11:18:54 AM
I've thought about that issue too. However, a big part of social media is also "checking in" or posting selfies of you and your friends at an event. I think MU is trying to tap into that, but there's still a long way to go. Part of it is making the games a "big event" worth showing your friends you were there. Obviously every game won't be at that level, but some will, and the ticket office needs to leverage the demand for those "big event" games into season tickets.
There is some of this yes, I think that explains a late arriving and quick to leave crowd. It's more about appearance to the experience than actually experiencing it. It's a deep sociological change that has occured a lot in the last 10 years.
Quote from: mujivitz06 on December 21, 2015, 11:36:12 AM
There is some of this yes, I think that explains a late arriving and quick to leave crowd. It's more about appearance to the experience than actually experiencing it. It's a deep sociological change that has occured a lot in the last 10 years.
I think attributing declining sporting event attendance to social media is quite a stretch.
I guess I'm the minority. I love love sporting events. I don't care if it's a cupcake beat down or a marquee matchup. I always want to be there. Hell, I used to get excited about cmu chippewa football games and salt lake city bees games when I lived in those areas. Two bad teams in two sports I really don't care about. There's an excitement and atmosphere that you don't get from the tv. I don't know, it just seems sad that this is the direction sports are going. If Ilived within 100 miles of Milwaukee id be at every game I possibly could.
Quote from: mujivitz06 on December 21, 2015, 10:41:59 AM
I don't think anyone has hit what is really happening.
The proliferation of social media has replaced our social systems of community building with artificial ones. I really believe it's that simple.
Humans re-think live events as somewhere to come together with a community and build a social system because it's done online.
Same reason no one goes to high school reunions anymore.
I am not sure I entirely agree with you. And I would argue that social media isn't an "artificial" community. Just a different one.
Quote from: mujivitz06 on December 21, 2015, 10:41:59 AM
Same reason no one goes to high school reunions anymore.
I would argue that social media has increased participation in things like high school reunions. I hadn't attended one in 25 years, but reconnecting with some of my old HS friends through social media made me want to see them in person. Also, we used social media to find formerly "lost" members of our class and drum up interest in the reunion.
Social media certainly has caused the death of the Christmas card. I don't need to send them out any more, because I am connected with nearly everyone on my old Christmas card list on social media. I no longer have the need to send them a picture of my family, catch them up on what's going on with us, etc. They already know.
Quote from: warriorchick on December 21, 2015, 12:39:35 PM
I would argue that social media has increased participation in things like high school reunions. I hadn't attended one in 25 years, but reconnecting with some of my old HS friends through social media made me want to see them in person. Also, we used social media to find formerly "lost" members of our class and drum up interest in the reunion.
Believe me though, it does lessen interest in these activities. I have seen this at our university for instance. However we have to understand that this isn't a bad thing. It's just different.
Quote from: LAZER on December 21, 2015, 12:01:28 PM
I think attributing declining sporting event attendance to social media is quite a stretch.
Not to speak for jivitz, but I think the logic is more correlation than causal.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on December 21, 2015, 12:17:41 PM
I guess I'm the minority. I love love sporting events. I don't care if it's a cupcake beat down or a marquee matchup. I always want to be there. Hell, I used to get excited about cmu chippewa football games and salt lake city bees games when I lived in those areas. Two bad teams in two sports I really don't care about. There's an excitement and atmosphere that you don't get from the tv. I don't know, it just seems sad that this is the direction sports are going. If Ilived within 100 miles of Milwaukee id be at every game I possibly could.
I love events at which I can socialize. So I love when we have MU viewing parties here in Charlotte. We had a nice turnout for UW and we're having another one for the Providence game 1/5. Some Providence alum organized it for his group, which is small, and then contacted our person and we're piggybacking in on it. It should be a blast, with lots of fun trash talk.
Yesterday, my wife and I went to a bar to watch the Panthers-Giants game because I like being around other Panthers fans when I watch games. I do this even though I have a big plasma TV with a gorgeous HD picture. It cost us about $50 in food and drinks, but we had fun.
Now, taking that up a notch and spending $100 or much more for tickets, plus parking, plus food and drink, and now you're getting expensive and that's why I don't go to many games.
But I agree with you, TAMU. If I lived within an easy drive to Milwaukee, I'd be a season-ticket holder. Because them's my boyz!!!
Quote from: jsglow on January 02, 1970, 10:17:51 AMAnyway, if you want to buy chick a beer tonight it'll be easy to find us.
Probably too late tonight, but maybe another game I'd take you up on that.
I went to the Creighton North Texas game tonight. Monday night late game, against a lousy team, school was out and there were still at least 15,000 bodies in the seats, they announced a 17,000 plus sellout.
Creighton draws because they consistently put out a good product. The facility is very good and college basketball is event in Omaha that people will bring their families to. Many of the people at the game never even attended Creighton or another university , yet they are big supporters of the team. They love being part of the Big East and conference games are quite loud.
I am confident our MU attendance will climb again once we get the product back to where we were during the Buzz era.
Quote from: Marquette Fan In NY on December 21, 2015, 10:51:19 PM
I went to the Creighton North Texas game tonight. Monday night late game, against a lousy team, school was out and there were still at least 15,000 bodies in the seats, they announced a 17,000 plus sellout.
Creighton draws because they consistently put out a good product. The facility is very good and college basketball is event in Omaha that people will bring their families to. Many of the people at the game never even attended Creighton or another university , yet they are big supporters of the team. They love being part of the Big East and conference games are quite loud.
I am confident our MU attendance will climb again once we get the product back to where we were during the Buzz era.
Plus, it helps when you are the only game in town (other than a couple weeks for the College WS).
Quote from: LAZER on December 21, 2015, 12:01:28 PM
I think attributing declining sporting event attendance to social media is quite a stretch.
Really? I think the logic is sound. Even thought it doesn't necessarily mean causation, you have to admit the correlation.
Have you tried to organize a high school reunion lately?
Quote from: warriorchick on December 21, 2015, 12:39:35 PM
I would argue that social media has increased participation in things like high school reunions. I hadn't attended one in 25 years, but reconnecting with some of my old HS friends through social media made me want to see them in person. Also, we used social media to find formerly "lost" members of our class and drum up interest in the reunion.
Social media certainly has caused the death of the Christmas card. I don't need to send them out any more, because I am connected with nearly everyone on my old Christmas card list on social media. I no longer have the need to send them a picture of my family, catch them up on what's going on with us, etc. They already know.
I was shocked to have as much trouble as I did getting interest in our high school reunion.
When we were in school our class was uniquely close, and I was baffled at the lack of interest.
Nearly every generation pre-internet has deep and loyal attendance at their reunions based on my research.
Quote from: Benny B on December 21, 2015, 01:49:45 PM
Not to speak for jivitz, but I think the logic is more correlation than causal.
Yes, correct.
To speak again on this last point, I guess I really don't know why this trend is happening but I think it's clear that it is and it's a trend across all live college sports. It's been brought up repeatedly by national writers in terms of college football student attendance the last 3 years.
Wallowing in complexities of scheduling, results, ticket prices etc., seem to not work because there always seem to be examples to the contrary to each point. While the product on the floor will still remain a (the) main factor in attendance, there seems to be a reason that people have to be dragged to games more and more (especially youth).
I still feel that a live game in the college setting used to be the "main" experience that was a must attend for no reason other than the construction of our social experience. That has all changed drastically with changing media. It just seems to be a factor to me, and I admit maybe just a contributing factor.
Maybe it is direct (can socialize more easily now) or indirect (makes us more sedentary in general) but I think there is something there.
Enjoying the discussion.
Quote from: Marquette Fan In NY on December 21, 2015, 10:51:19 PM
I went to the Creighton North Texas game tonight. Monday night late game, against a lousy team, school was out and there were still at least 15,000 bodies in the seats, they announced a 17,000 plus sellout.
Creighton draws because they consistently put out a good product. The facility is very good and college basketball is event in Omaha that people will bring their families to. Many of the people at the game never even attended Creighton or another university , yet they are big supporters of the team. They love being part of the Big East and conference games are quite loud.
I am confident our MU attendance will climb again once we get the product back to where we were during the Buzz era.
What else is there to do in Omaha?
Quote from: mujivitz06 on December 22, 2015, 12:46:53 AMMaybe it is direct (can socialize more easily now) or indirect (makes us more sedentary in general) but I think there is something there.
I think you hit the nail on the head here. I don't know that it's the product on the floor, the stadium experience, or any of that. I do think people are more sedentary and like leaving the house less for multiple reasons.
I was amazed going to the mall last week to find it virtually empty 10 days before Christmas. My wife bought some items that she wanted returned and I was able to go into the store, immediately go to the front of the line and finish my transaction in about 3 minutes. What's that got to do with basketball attendance? Just the comforts of home.
We can do our shopping at home, we can watch games at home, we can find dates at home, we can talk to friends face to face at home. Whether it's Amazon, a DirecTV/cable package with 500 channels, eHarmony, or Skype, many of the things you use to have to go in public to do we can now do without leaving the house, and we've become comfortable with that.
Personally, I'd say I attend about 85% of Marquette games. I usually miss no more than 2-3 games per year. When I do miss them, if it's not because of work or travel, it's simply because I'm too lazy that day to go. I'm sure declining STH packages are similar. You miss a few games because you're lazy, get comfortable at home, and realize you can save $1,000+ on tickets by staying home and have a better view of the action than you have from your seats.
I still love the experience and still plan to keep going to games. I also can't wait for the new arena to open. But I get why people would drop packages and why attendance numbers are declining. At home, the beer is cheaper, the view is better, and there's no lines at the bathroom. And if you do everything else at home, why not watch your games there, too?
Quote from: brewcity77 on December 21, 2015, 07:47:24 PM
Probably too late tonight, but maybe another game I'd take you up on that.
That'll be great! Sorry, I don't typically look at scoop during the game so didn't see until this morning.
Funny thing is that we ran into some good friends last night exiting the BC and headed over to the Old German Beer Hall for a 45 minute nightcap. It was a nice way to spend a little time with some lifelong friends right before Christmas. Had we stayed home and watched from the couch......
Quote from: warriorchick on December 22, 2015, 08:04:42 AM
What else is there to do in Omaha?
This. It's like a slightly bigger, but more boring Grand Rapids. At least G-Rap has a decent brewery.
Quote from: mujivitz06 on December 21, 2015, 10:41:59 AM
I don't think anyone has hit what is really happening.
The proliferation of social media has replaced our social systems of community building with artificial ones. I really believe it's that simple.
Humans re-think live events as somewhere to come together with a community and build a social system because it's done online.
Same reason no one goes to high school reunions anymore.
I disagree. Try getting a ticket to an "important" live event.
Quote from: jsglow on December 22, 2015, 08:26:48 AM
That'll be great! Sorry, I don't typically look at scoop during the game so didn't see until this morning.
Funny thing is that we ran into some good friends last night exiting the BC and headed over to the Old German Beer Hall for a 45 minute nightcap. It was a nice way to spend a little time with some lifelong friends right before Christmas. Had we stayed home and watched from the couch......
You could have had WAY more to drink without worrying about driving home and then "liked" your friend's Facebook post about being at the German Beer Hall ;)
Quote from: brandx on December 22, 2015, 12:09:29 PM
I disagree. Try getting a ticket to an "important" live event.
True the apex events always get sold out/high ticket demand.
We aren't talking about that, we are talking about general trends for any ordinary game/general attendance.
One could argue that "apex events" are also hurting attendance at "ordinary events."
**It takes discretionary money away from attending ordinary events. (Would you rather attend one or two apex events a year, or two dozen ordinary ones?)
**It makes the ordinary events seem too ordinary. (Smaller crowd, dull environment, less hype)
**People would rather stay home and watch an apex event on television than sit at a live ordinary event. (Like what will happen this Sunday at the Marquette game. People don't want to be late to watch the Packer game.)
Quote from: warriorchick on December 22, 2015, 08:04:42 AM
What else is there to do in Omaha?
They have all the same entertainment amenities as any other Midwestern city of similar size.
They sold out the Century Link center for the NCAA womans volleyball final on Saturday night. People there are good sports fans.
Quote from: Marquette Fan In NY on December 22, 2015, 05:08:56 PM
They have all the same entertainment amenities as any other Midwestern city of similar size.
They sold out the Century Link center for the NCAA womans volleyball final on Saturday night. People there are good sports fans.
But they have no pro sports of any kind. Marquette has to compete with the Bucks and the Admirals for sports entertainment dollars.
Quote from: Marquette Fan In NY on December 22, 2015, 05:08:56 PM
They have all the same entertainment amenities as any other Midwestern city of similar size.
They sold out the Century Link center for the NCAA womans volleyball final on Saturday night. People there are good sports fans.
+1
Under what scenario could any other city get 17,000 people to a Women's college volleyball game?
Omaha is unique and leave it at that.
Quote from: Marquette Fan In NY on December 22, 2015, 05:08:56 PM
They have all the same entertainment amenities as any other Midwestern city of similar size.
They sold out the Century Link center for the NCAA womans volleyball final on Saturday night. People there are good sports fans.
You're right.
But I was referring to sports & hometown teams. Milwaukee has MU, Brewers, Bucks, and even the Packers are "sort of" a Milwaukee team.
Omaha relies on outside events like said volleyball tournament or the College WS.
Edit: Sorry, Chick - didn't see yours before I posted.
Quote from: brandx on December 22, 2015, 12:09:29 PM
Try getting a ticket to an "important" live event.
About 2 hours ago, I tried to get two of the 6,000 or so supposedly available tickets to the Panthers' first playoff game.
They went on sale at 6 ET, I was on the ticketmaster site (the only place they were sold) within seconds of 6 p.m. I hit the keys I was supposed to hit, was told wait time was longer than normal, and about 5 minutes later I got a message that tickets were no longer available. Just to make sure, I tried 3 more times. No go.
Because I flat-out refuse to pay hundreds of dollars for $60 nosebleed tickets, I will be watching the game at home. And that will be fine, too. I actually probably will go to a Panthers bar and cheer my ass off for a fraction of the price, and I'll have fun doing it!
Quote from: MU82 on December 22, 2015, 07:14:29 PM
About 2 hours ago, I tried to get two of the 6,000 or so supposedly available tickets to the Panthers' first playoff game.
They went on sale at 6 ET, I was on the ticketmaster site (the only place they were sold) within seconds of 6 p.m. I hit the keys I was supposed to hit, was told wait time was longer than normal, and about 5 minutes later I got a message that tickets were no longer available. Just to make sure, I tried 3 more times. No go.
Because I flat-out refuse to pay hundreds of dollars for $60 nosebleed tickets, I will be watching the game at home. And that will be fine, too. I actually probably will go to a Panthers bar and cheer my ass off for a fraction of the price, and I'll have fun doing it!
I'll mark it on my Calendar to send condolences after they lose to GB 8-)
Quote from: Heisenberg on December 22, 2015, 06:37:05 PM
Omaha is unique and leave it at that.
Nebraska is Unique, in that there's aren't many sports teams. See...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sports_teams_in_Nebraska
For comparison, here's Wisconsin:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_in_Wisconsin
I will say, WI has an impressive list of defunct professional teams :)
Quote from: brandx on December 22, 2015, 07:20:06 PM
I'll mark it on my Calendar to send condolences after they lose to GB 8-)
Well played.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2015/06/19/college-football-how-to-fix-student-attendance-decline/29007681/
Quote from: MU82 on December 22, 2015, 09:36:35 PM
Well played.
I don't think you have to worry about that. GB looks pretty pedestrian this year. Lacks the killer instinct, though Carolina is in a similar boat. I'd be worried about Seattle and Arizona.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on December 22, 2015, 11:56:08 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2015/06/19/college-football-how-to-fix-student-attendance-decline/29007681/
Nice find ...
So not only does all of college basketball have declining attendance, so does college football. And MU attendance is down far less than average. (and MU has, year in and year out, the highest non-football school attendance in the country.)
Given all this, I have no doubt that the next home game after the students return will generate some hyperventilating thread that "no one went to the game" and "MU fans are terrible" and "the Big East is failing."
Since we are in the slow period around the holidays, maybe we should start that thread now to pass the time.
If not, we can go back to the old standby ... MU cannot win on National TV.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 23, 2015, 12:17:05 AM
I don't think you have to worry about that. GB looks pretty pedestrian this year. Lacks the killer instinct, though Carolina is in a similar boat. I'd be worried about Seattle and Arizona.
I'm plenty worried that our reward for going 16-0 will be a divisional round game against Seattle.
"Killer instinct" is one of those cliches that doesn't mean a whole lot to me, though. The Panthers have closed out games just fine, especially in the second half of the season. The couple of times they let an opponent back in, they responded by winning anyway. The Panthers don't deserve to be called great yet, but they are a very good team.
As are the Seahawks and Cardinals. And maybe the Packers. We'll know in a few weeks!
Quote from: Marquette Fan In NY on December 21, 2015, 10:51:19 PM
I am confident our MU attendance will climb again once we get the product back to where we were during the Buzz era.
Firstly, it should be noted that all we're talking about is Season Ticket Holders. Walk-up purchases are just a fraction of the average. Sure, there'll be a sellout here and there, but the other 17 games walk-up sales are near zero.
I don't believe an attendance climb will happen .. the trend will be downward from here on out.
While the product can be incrementally improved by adding wifi, confetti, t-shirts or whatever .. those do not move the needle much.
Performance does, and yes, it's hopeful that MU has brighter days ahead.
But a major factor for a Season Ticket Holder customer, both in the past and future .. is simply the opponents we play. The "big game count." In the old days, STHs bought those 10 crappy games to get 10 Big Games. Those days are over, never to return.
Butler and Creighton may have great teams now and then, but no one is buying a season to get tickets to those games. MU is down to games versus GTown, Nova, and every other year, UW. Maybe MU gets one other game (Iowa) that people consider "can't miss" .. but that's it. (Could MU add 3-can't missers to the OOC schedule? Yup. But nope.)
Mix in a new stadium and higher ticket prices? The first year that stadium opens, people will keep their seats for the novelty .. but year 2 onward .. look out below.
Another factor that'll hit MU.. the new stadium is supposed to have more lower bowl seats, which means the secondary market will also then have more lowers for sale, making it even easier to pass up a 20 game package for just buying 4-5 from a scalper.
Add in the social media aspect, the HD TV aspect .. lots of reasons for a sustained decline.
Do you have any suggestions hilltopper? I don't think the future is as grim as you paint it. But I do agree that they will trend down. But I think it will be much slower and I think it won't go below a certain point. Well have seasons where it climbs due to good teams. I think the new stadium bump will be significant as well
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on December 23, 2015, 12:01:45 PM
Do you have any suggestions hilltopper? I don't think the future is as grim as you paint it. But I do agree that they will trend down. But I think it will be much slower and I think it won't go below a certain point. Well have seasons where it climbs due to good teams. I think the new stadium bump will be significant as well
I believe that if we get back to winning, say a NCAA berth the next three years and maybe one trip to the second weekend, you'll see a significant bump for the new stadium. Maybe not back to the days of Buzz, but enough that we'll be selling 90% of the tickets in the new venue and getting back to the 15,000+ averages.
I don't believe it will ever hold there, though. I'm with Hilltopper that ultimately, attendance will continue to decline. I don't think there's really much that can done about it, just a societal shift.
Quote from: Heisenberg on December 23, 2015, 07:57:36 AM
Nice find ...
So not only does all of college basketball have declining attendance, so does college football. And MU attendance is down far less than average. (and MU has, year in and year out, the highest non-football school attendance in the country.)
Not true. Creighton has had higher attendance than us for a few years now. The last time MU's attendance was greater than Creighton's was 2010-11.
As an example, here are last season's numbers: http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/m_basketball_RB/Reports/attend/2015.pdf
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on December 23, 2015, 12:01:45 PM
Do you have any suggestions hilltopper? I don't think the future is as grim as you paint it. But I do agree that they will trend down. I think the new stadium bump will be significant as well
Quote from: brewcity77 on December 23, 2015, 12:27:30 PM
I believe that if we get back to winning, say a NCAA berth the next three years and maybe one trip to the second weekend, you'll see a significant bump for the new stadium.
Addressing both posts .. I don't see it. You've got to retain most of your current STHs, and you've got 2 major groups of people to target as new season ticket holders. (There are other groups, but these two are the larger possible targets.)
1. Young/new alumni who loved games as students
2. People who dropped their season tickets
The #2 group .. I don't see coming back. They performed calculus not just on one season, but future seasons because the point-system is an investment and giving up their tickets means they lose a good portion of that nut. No new (and more expensive) stadium, nor some great Marches are going to change that. They'd just pick up some extra scalped tickets as their interest piques.
The other group of young/new alumni .. It's safe to assume that group grows smaller each year. Tight money, and frankly, tight time. (It's why the golf economy is getting smaller. Fewer are willing to pay $40+ and play 4 hours of golf.) Maybe you do buy $350 for 2 upper deck corners, but few friends are there and 20 games is a lot to commit to. Not to mention .. they crave that crazy student section experience, and upstairs it is a library.*
I just do not see a new stadium with higher ticket prices garnering many more season package sales. People will want to see the new stadium, so walk-ups will be higher for a year or three.. but all the negatives on a 20 game package remain.
As for winning being important .. sure. But one S16 season, one E8 season is not going to suddenly get you 1000 new 20-game ticket customers any more.
One other trend that I haven't mentioned: The secondary market is WAY easier to navigate now than 5+ years ago. Click a website, see the available tickets, click click print. -- Not to mention the downward pressure when STHs realize half+ their package are games that you'd struggle to get 50% of face if sold, making you realize buying a season is a poor economic choice.
* Ok, you want a possible solution? A lower bowl section next to the students dedicated to recent grads. Let them retain their crazy atmosphere for a few more years, maybe they catch the fever and convert to the sweater-vest sections.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on December 23, 2015, 01:34:33 PM
The #2 group .. I don't see coming back. They performed calculus not just on one season, but future seasons because the point-system is an investment and giving up their tickets means they lose a good portion of that nut. No new (and more expensive) stadium, nor some great Marches are going to change that. They'd just pick up some extra scalped tickets as their interest piques.
I think you might be a little off base here. From my observation, most of the folks that dropped their season tickets were already towards the back of the line, and therefore had less to lose by not renewing. We have been season ticket holders for the entire length of the decline, and my guess is that we are about in the 60th-70th percentile in terms of points the entire time. Also, our choice of seat location has not materially changed. That means that in all likelihood, the vast majority of the 2,000 season tickets that were dropped were behind us, sitting in the mid-to-higher sections of the upper bowl.
Most of the folks who dropped their seats will only be penalized a few rows or perhaps one section if they decide to start buying them again.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on December 23, 2015, 11:49:35 AM
But a major factor for a Season Ticket Holder customer, both in the past and future .. is simply the opponents we play. The "big game count." In the old days, STHs bought those 10 crappy games to get 10 Big Games. Those days are over, never to return.
Present and future? Maybe. Past? Not a chance.
In the old days,
IF you were lucky enough to be offered a Marquette ticket, you took it and went to the game, regardless of the opponent.
You did it because you never knew when you might have a chance to get another. You certainly couldn't walk up to the box office and pick a game based on the opponent--all games were sellouts for years. Students only got tickets to half the games--if they got tickets at all. The general public was all but locked out.
We certainly didn't have 10 Big home games in the GMC, MCC or CUSA days--unless you count teams that we couldn't wait to get away from as being "big." And we certainly didn't play 10 big home games as an independent--unless you apply some ex-post-facto reasoning to imply that playing Xavier and Butler of the 1970s is the equivalent of playing them today. Check their history--they were the Presbyterians and Chicago States of that era.
Here's something to chew on: The entire decade of the 80's we played only 11 ranked opponents at home. The entire decade of the 90's we played 15.
We'll probably face 4 ranked opponents at home this year alone. And we're supposed to have pity on today's STH?
So the tradeoff is that instead of a lousy team you may have heard of, we're playing a lousy team you haven't heard of. And you'll see 3 to 4x the number of ranked opponents in a season.
But because demand is consistently 4,000 to 5,000 seats below capacity, people now feel they can pick and choose their opponent, then complain when every game doesn't meet some arbitrary worthiness threshold.
We could solve the attendance and no-show issue once and for all by returning to a 10,000 seat arena. It wasn't the number of "Big" games on the schedule that dictated ticket purchases or eliminated no-shows--it was the difficulty in getting a ticket. Nothing would solve this faster than creating constraints on capacity.
Quote from: warriorchick on December 23, 2015, 01:51:19 PM
From my observation, most of the folks that dropped their season tickets were already towards the back of the line, and therefore had less to lose by not renewing. ..
Most of the folks who dropped their seats will only be penalized a few rows or perhaps one section if they decide to start buying them again.
I hadn't thought about "who" had dropped tickets, so that's some decent commentary.
But .. while we agree the "who" is likely skewed to short-timers, regardless of that factor, people who dropped, dropped for a reason. Indeed, the long-timers had a lot to lose, and that door is likely completely shut. But those short-timers didn't accidentally drop their tickets.
So why? Why does an upper-deck (likely) young alumni drop tickets, and the subsequent question, how does that decision get reversed? Were they fair weather fans, dropping on the 1-2-3rd season of unhappy on-court performance, and could be ready to jump back on the bandwagon? Or did they drop for less whimsical reasons, that their 60 hours of time and $700-1500 in dollars garner enough value?
I'd suggest that regardless of the reason, getting BACK a customer is harder might well be harder than finding a new one. The former customer knows how "fun" it is to plunk down $40-75, commute to the BC, find parking, and watch MU on a Tuesday night pummel a cupcake with a half empty BC.
#debbiedowner
Quote from: The Equalizer on December 23, 2015, 02:59:44 PM
...
So, in conclusion, of the 100 seasons of MUBB, roughly 20 of those years (~1965-1985) it was hard to get a MU ticket, and in the first ~85 seasons, we rarely played ranked teams, so customer issues uttered today about value are asking for pity.
And a 10,000 stadium would indeed create some scarcity, and shake loose complainers.
Great points!
Again, the Coors Light Corner was a credit to Marquette from Learfield. A make good. MUAD made money as it required a seat donation. And the $100 covered the beer cost. Pretty successful pilot.
We could do what Creighton is doing tonight. Dollar Beer Night.
Who the hell is running their marketing? They already have close to a sellout, they are playing Providence, and they're having Dollar Beer Night tonight? Why not use that for the cupcakes?
Quote from: warriorchick on January 12, 2016, 08:41:59 PM
We could do what Creighton is doing tonight. Dollar Beer Night.
Who the hell is running their marketing? They already have close to a sellout, they are playing Providence, and they're having Dollar Beer Night tonight? Why not use that for the cupcakes?
with 0 research that sounds like it would be a BMO Harris Center initiative (and the equivalent for Creighton) vs. a Marquette initiative since, it's my understanding that, BMO Harris gets concession $'s and not Marquette.
But I agree the MU contacts to BMO need to push this.....just not their ultimate decision.
Quote from: warriorchick on January 12, 2016, 08:41:59 PM
We could do what Creighton is doing tonight. Dollar Beer Night.
Who the hell is running their marketing? They already have close to a sellout, they are playing Providence, and they're having Dollar Beer Night tonight? Why not use that for the cupcakes?
Not quite.
The dollar beer was for the players.The teams have combined to shoot 22% for the game and have already missed 76 shots and they are only midway through the 2nd half. Can they hit 100 missed shots for the game?
I knew beer and good golf didn't go together. Apparently, beer and good basketball don't either.
With all the games on TV there is no need to buy tickets.
Quote from: bilsu on January 12, 2016, 09:11:30 PM
With all the games on TV there is no need to buy tickets.
Being at the game is so much more than watching on TV.
Quote from: brandx on January 12, 2016, 09:10:41 PM
Not quite. The dollar beer was for the players.
The teams have combined to shoot 22% for the game and have already missed 76 shots and they are only midway through the 2nd half. Can they hit 100 missed shots for the game?
I knew beer and good golf didn't go together. Apparently, beer and good basketball don't either.
I think I could shoot better than that drunk.
Quote from: forgetful on January 12, 2016, 09:53:48 PM
I think I could shoot better than that drunk.
Yahoo. They kept in under 100.
Only 97 missed shots in the game.
Beer & Hoops do go together.
Quote from: brandx on January 12, 2016, 09:10:41 PM
Not quite. The dollar beer was for the players.
The teams have combined to shoot 22% for the game and have already missed 76 shots and they are only midway through the 2nd half. Can they hit 100 missed shots for the game?
I knew beer and good golf didn't go together. Apparently, beer and good basketball don't either.
Ha. Both teams looked beer drunk all night. That is until the final possession when Dunn savored his Smirnoff Ice. Helluva step back J. Guess the Jays failed to watch #mubb's defensive game tape
Quote from: brandx on January 12, 2016, 09:10:41 PM
Not quite. The dollar beer was for the players.
The teams have combined to shoot 22% for the game and have already missed 76 shots and they are only midway through the 2nd half. Can they hit 100 missed shots for the game?
I knew beer and good golf didn't go together. Apparently, beer and good basketball don't either.
I always bowled better drunk. At least that's how I remember it....
Quote from: GooooMarquette on January 13, 2016, 07:47:24 AM
I always bowled better drunk. At least that's how I remember it....
Me too. Thinking and bowling don't go together too well.
Quote from: CTWarrior on January 13, 2016, 07:55:26 AM
Me too. Thinking and bowling don't go together too well.
Note, though, that bowling, like pool, darts, horseshoes, croquet, bocce ball, and ping pong, among others, are officially recognized as drinking sports.