MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: Warrior of Law on August 03, 2017, 02:17:48 PM
-
Just got an email reminder about tix for 2017-18. They are marketing the end of the Bradley Center:
"The 2017-18 campaign will mark the final season in the BMO Harris Bradley Center, which will be celebrating its 30th anniversary all season long."
There is no reference to moving into a state-of-the art new NBA facility for 2018-19. Usually, they will encourage tickets to be purchased this year to ensure the best seats in the new place, etc. I am speculating that MU may not have an agreement on rent for the new facility. Based on what the Bucks are charging for tickets, it seems likely that the rent may be too high to support playing all 18 MU home games there. It could become a situation similar to a few of our BE peers in that the "big" games are played in the NBA/NHL facility, and the other games on are on-campus or elsewhere.
I could (and hope to) be wrong, but it seems rather late in the process to not have this matter buttoned-up.
-
Just got an email reminder about tix for 2017-18. They are marketing the end of the Bradley Center:
"The 2017-18 campaign will mark the final season in the BMO Harris Bradley Center, which will be celebrating its 30th anniversary all season long."
There is no reference to moving into a state-of-the art new NBA facility for 2018-19. Usually, they will encourage tickets to be purchased this year to ensure the best seats in the new place, etc. I am speculating that MU may not have an agreement on rent for the new facility. Based on what the Bucks are charging for tickets, it seems likely that the rent may be too high to support playing all 18 MU home games there. It could become a situation similar to a few of our BE peers in that the "big" games are played in the NBA/NHL facility, and the other games on are on-campus or elsewhere.
I could (and hope to) be wrong, but it seems rather late in the process to not have this matter buttoned-up.
Marquette doesn't have the on-campus facility like those other schools do.
-
Was told that a lease will be signed this month. Negotiations were difficult from everything I've heard, but MU will be playing in the new arena.
-
Good to hear. I imagine those were some intense negotiations. The Bucks ownership, and therefore the management of the arena, not having Milwaukee and/or Marquette connections likely doesn't help.
-
Makes me wonder if it would've been better to just pay upfront and be partners with the bucks on this as opposed to renting
-
Makes me wonder if it would've been better to just pay upfront and be partners with the bucks on this as opposed to renting
Not a good use of capital really why pay upfront
-
Makes me wonder if it would've been better to just pay upfront and be partners with the bucks on this as opposed to renting
Wouldn't have mattered, the Bucks leadership would have hardballed us there too. I have to say, I've had some experiences with the Bucks leadership team, and while I like what they've done for the Bucks.....generally those guys are d!ck$ when it comes to anything Milwaukee that is not the Bucks, on top of kind of being a$$holes.
-
Wouldn't have mattered, the Bucks leadership would have hardballed us there too. I have to say, I've had some experiences with the Bucks leadership team, and while I like what they've done for the Bucks.....generally those guys are d!ck$ when it comes to anything Milwaukee that is not the Bucks, on top of kind of being a$$holes.
They're kind of Masters of the Universe hedge fund types. Not sure I could imagine them being any other way.
-
Wouldn't have mattered, the Bucks leadership would have hardballed us there too. I have to say, I've had some experiences with the Bucks leadership team, and while I like what they've done for the Bucks.....generally those guys are d!ck$ when it comes to anything Milwaukee that is not the Bucks, on top of kind of being a$$holes.
Yup.
-
Another vote for renting. In 5 years, the Bucks will be unhappy with the Jumbotron or that the locker rooms are too small or they want laser guided t-shirt cannons mounted on the 2nd floor.
Meanwhile, the Bucks need a tenant, and revenue. Although since the demolition of the BC was in the agreements .. not sure how much leverage they had.
-
Was told that a lease will be signed this month. Negotiations were difficult from everything I've heard, but MU will be playing in the new arena.
I've heard the same thing although don't know anything about the timing of the formal signing. I think it is fair to say that there's been a bit of a falling out between the university and the Bucks. I can't pretend to speculate about the basis for this. I don't think it relates to #mubb at all.
-
I've heard the same thing although don't know anything about the timing of the formal signing. I think it is fair to say that there's been a bit of a falling out between the university and the Bucks. I can't pretend to speculate about the basis for this. I don't think it relates to #mubb at all.
Honestly, I think it's because the Bucks think they can get whatever they want.
-
They're kind of Masters of the Universe hedge fund types. Not sure I could imagine them being any other way.
Yeah I know the type. They really aren't beholden to Milwaukee in anyway outside of how it impacts their ownership in the Bucks. I mean, why not play hardball with Marquette? They know they have Marquette over a barrel.
-
BTW, there's updated pics in the Journal.
-
I've heard the same thing although don't know anything about the timing of the formal signing. I think it is fair to say that there's been a bit of a falling out between the university and the Bucks. I can't pretend to speculate about the basis for this. I don't think it relates to #mubb at all.
Started with the Aurora money and deteriorated from there.
-
Just got an email reminder about tix for 2017-18. They are marketing the end of the Bradley Center:
"The 2017-18 campaign will mark the final season in the BMO Harris Bradley Center, which will be celebrating its 30th anniversary all season long."
There is no reference to moving into a state-of-the art new NBA facility for 2018-19. Usually, they will encourage tickets to be purchased this year to ensure the best seats in the new place, etc. I am speculating that MU may not have an agreement on rent for the new facility. Based on what the Bucks are charging for tickets, it seems likely that the rent may be too high to support playing all 18 MU home games there. It could become a situation similar to a few of our BE peers in that the "big" games are played in the NBA/NHL facility, and the other games on are on-campus or elsewhere.
I could (and hope to) be wrong, but it seems rather late in the process to not have this matter buttoned-up.
My concern all along has been that they well change the point system. Maybe they will go to a seat license? I believe Louisville is one of the schools that does this.
They will not be reference buying tickets for this season having a benefit for next season, if they are in the process of changing the system.
-
Started with the Aurora money and deteriorated from there.
I thought the Bucks were key partners in the MU facility. What's the issue with the Aurora money?
-
I thought the Bucks were key partners in the MU facility. What's the issue with the Aurora money?
Not anymore. Froedtert ended up partnering with the Bucks. Aurora has always been a big supporter of MU on the healthcare side along with Wheaton Franciscan. I think there might have been some friction with the Bucks regarding that.
-
Honestly, I think it's because the Bucks think they can get whatever they want.
With the BC coming down, they can. What's our option? The Al? UW-Milwaukee arena? Rosemont?
The Bucks do benefit from a regular tenant...but they also have other sources of revenue, like concerts. MU has no real choice.
-
With the BC coming down, they can. What's our option? The Al? UW-Milwaukee arena? Rosemont?
The Bucks do benefit from a regular tenant...but they also have other sources of revenue, like concerts. MU has no real choice.
While all true, the Bucks have no other way to fill 18 dates in the winter. Simply not possible with monster trucks and ice shows. It'll get done.
-
Honestly, I think it's because the Bucks think they can get whatever they want.
Honestly, I think it's because the Bucks can get whatever they want.
We have no hand.
-
I'm sure MU can work it out, but the Bucks owners could care less about Marquette,they just want
to double the worth of the franchise..
-
Maybe they can put a court in center field in Miller Park.
-
I thought the Bucks were key partners in the MU facility. What's the issue with the Aurora money?
When there was the planned joint Sports Medicine facility with the Bucks and Marquette, the expectation was that there would be open bidding for the naming rights. Pretty sure the Bucks (who work with the current Sports Medicine Institute at Froedtert) expected FMLH would win the rights and Marquette expected that Aurora (whom they partner with) would win.
Regardless, before the bidding opened, Marquette announced a partnership with Aurora. Didn't sit well with the Bucks, who went their own way and partnered up with Froedtert. Definitely a bit of a misstep by Marquette, in my opinion.
-
While all true, the Bucks have no other way to fill 18 dates in the winter. Simply not possible with monster trucks and ice shows. It'll get done.
Agree it'll get done. But on balance, MU needs a place to play (absolutely essential) a lot more than the Bucks need to fill an extra 18 dates (great for extra revenue, but they'd survive without it).
-
At some price point, I'm sure MU has costed out what their next best option would be. If they have to pay $1M/year in rent, over the course of 10-15 years, they may be better off building their own facility.
-
It's hard to believe, but - at some point - Al McGuire Center will become outdated, and the need for a new on-campus facility (for practice use and/or otherwise) will present itself. At that time, who knows? Perhaps with Lovell, who has shown his commitment to building new structures on campus, as well as extending campus, there is a day where Marquette decides it wants to build its own on-campus arena. However, I don't think that time is in the near future. One day perhaps.
There is something to be said at playing at an NBA arena, especially considering our attendance figures over the years. We supply a great deal of fans to games, even in down years. It helps with recruiting, it helps with our program prestige and it is great for the students and fans.
-
For those of you who don't know, professional sports team sell their relationships with physician groups. It isn't who is the best doctor, it's who pays the most. That's why agents should get their players with the best doctor, regardless of where they play.
-
At some price point, I'm sure MU has costed out what their next best option would be. If they have to pay $1M/year in rent, over the course of 10-15 years, they may be better off building their own facility.
They could pay 30M in rent over the life of the building and still be better off than building and operating their own facility.
-
They could pay 30M in rent over the life of the building and still be better off than building and operating their own facility.
+1
-
When there was the planned joint Sports Medicine facility with the Bucks and Marquette, the expectation was that there would be open bidding for the naming rights. Pretty sure the Bucks (who work with the current Sports Medicine Institute at Froedtert) expected FMLH would win the rights and Marquette expected that Aurora (whom they partner with) would win.
Regardless, before the bidding opened, Marquette announced a partnership with Aurora. Didn't sit well with the Bucks, who went their own way and partnered up with Froedtert. Definitely a bit of a misstep by Marquette, in my opinion.
This is one of several sources of friction between the Bucks and Marquette, add it's probably one of the biggest. Another one was that MU was buying up property(as part of a planned long range plan) that the Bucks were starting to look at for the arena.....the Bucks felt MU was trying to strong arm them by owning the property first (probably thought that cause it's what the Bucks would have done were the roles reversed).
All of this combined with MU not having much other leverage has led to the Bucks putting MU over the barrel a bit. A deal will get done because it is in the best interests of both parties but I think it's going to be a fairly contentious relationship going forward.
It's not just MU though, the Bucks relationship with United Way has gotten somewhat contentious as well. It's just the style of the new leadership team
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
-
At the end of the day, it just makes too much sense for both parties, but I do worry a bit about how it may affect our ticket prices.
-
At the end of the day, it just makes too much sense for both parties, but I do worry a bit about how it may affect our ticket prices.
Oh they are going up to be sure, but not really sure how much.....that's the delicate box MU finds itself. It can justify some price increase with the new facility but if they increase too much they may accelerate the STH flight that's going on.
Whether they will acknowledge it or not, there is a considerable amount of angst/need for this season to be very successful
-
They could pay 30M in rent over the life of the building and still be better off than building and operating their own facility.
+1,000
-
It can justify some price increase with the new facility but if they increase too much they may accelerate the STH flight that's going on.
Whether they will acknowledge it or not, there is a considerable amount of angst/need for this season to be very successful
Interesting topic for sure. I think the bulk of the "excess" STH flight is over, though. Their bigger issue is churn. STHs have a normal rate of decline as people age out, become disinterested, find new ways to spend their entertainment dollar.
The bigger deal now is finding new STHs to replace the others. Excitement breeds ST desire .. and students haven't experienced real excitement since 2012. Yeah, last year was swell, but likely not enough to generate tons of desire from 20-somethings new in the job market.
I'd guess STH levels will flatten out for the next two years as people anticipate a season in the new arena and will accept a one year price jump to see the place. 2nd season in the place .. will depend on wins/losses in March. If Wojo can string together 3 seasons of NCAAs, they'll be ok .. if MU underperforms / no post-season .. STH decline will accelerate in 2019.
-
I'd be interested to get the perspective of the MU lobbyist when the state was putting the arena package together. Clearly, MU knew the BC was going down, MU recommended STHs to support the deal, and there was likely a MOU on the MU rental prior to the public support.
Regardless, MU is missing out on a great tool for selling tickets, so hopefully they get it resolved quickly.
-
Interesting topic for sure. I think the bulk of the "excess" STH flight is over, though. Their bigger issue is churn. STHs have a normal rate of decline as people age out, become disinterested, find new ways to spend their entertainment dollar.
The bigger deal now is finding new STHs to replace the others. Excitement breeds ST desire .. and students haven't experienced real excitement since 2012. Yeah, last year was swell, but likely not enough to generate tons of desire from 20-somethings new in the job market.
I'd guess STH levels will flatten out for the next two years as people anticipate a season in the new arena and will accept a one year price jump to see the place. 2nd season in the place .. will depend on wins/losses in March. If Wojo can string together 3 seasons of NCAAs, they'll be ok .. if MU underperforms / no post-season .. STH decline will accelerate in 2019.
I think the bulk of the growth in STH won't come from alums in their 20s. It will come from alums in their 30s and 40s who are into MU basketball, but haven't sprung for season tickets yet because they haven't been able to afford it or just had other things to do.
-
Making the NCAA last year helped stop the STH decline. However, all of this shows how high the stakes are with winning and keeping things rolling. The stakes will be even higher going forward, assuming we have a less favorable lease at the new arena. This entire situation is another reason I'm OK with Wojo going after Grimes, even though we're currently full for next year.
-
I'd be interested to get the perspective of the MU lobbyist when the state was putting the arena package together. Clearly, MU knew the BC was going down, MU recommended STHs to support the deal, and there was likely a MOU on the MU rental prior to the public support.
Regardless, MU is missing out on a great tool for selling tickets, so hopefully they get it resolved quickly.
I think most MU fans have figured it out for themselves. I doubt that there will be many folks next year who will be saying, "Dang it! I completely forgot about the whole 'new stadium' thing when I was deciding whether or not to buy season tickets last year!"
-
Sales in 2017,were 4 times of 2016 1st week & equal to '15 & '16 combined for new season tickets. I was told sure tickets will go up, but they will not sky rocket in the overwhelming most locations. The goal is to sell seats. New arena or not, Chicago State is still Chicago State in the new arena. The goal is to have the new prices out to the public for the new arena in January.
-
I think the bulk of the growth in STH won't come from alums in their 20s. It will come from alums in their 30s and 40s who are into MU basketball, but haven't sprung for season tickets yet because they haven't been able to afford it or just had other things to do.
I think it could come from both. The Coors Light corner is a great idea to help get the 20-somethings in the door, and hopefully they'll want regular tickets as they get older. I think the $125 end-zone sections are another great idea. Those sections are full and get people in the habit of buying season tickets, and hopefully they upgrade to better seats as they accumulate more points.
-
Has anyone seen a seating chart of the new arena? Any idea what the student section will look like? With a larger lower level, it would be nice to have a larger continuous section, instead of being broken up into the different levels. The corners/endzone of the BC are such a fractured mess for seating, which really makes it difficult to have a cohesive student section.
-
Has anyone seen a seating chart of the new arena? Any idea what the student section will look like? With a larger lower level, it would be nice to have a larger continuous section, instead of being broken up into the different levels. The corners/endzone of the BC are such a fractured mess for seating, which really makes it difficult to have a cohesive student section.
This would be my best guess as far as the students are concerned.
-
Oh they are going up to be sure, but not really sure how much.....that's the delicate box MU finds itself. It can justify some price increase with the new facility but if they increase too much they may accelerate the STH flight that's going on.
Talking to some Bucks STHs, the increases were sharper than many expected. This article (http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/local/milwaukee/2017/07/11/its-price-vs-pleasure-milwaukee-bucks-pitch-season-tickets/451313001/) discusses some of those increases, in the 45-63% range.
Having trouble finding the new Bucks seating chart on my phone, but one thing that stood out was not just the higher price points, but multiple price points in the same section depending on how close you are. So rows A-F for example costing more than Q-Z.
Not sure how MU will handle it, but if my current annual bill of around $1600 jumps to $2400 or more, that'll be a hard sell. And for newer STHs, part of the incentive is the chance to improve your sectional standing. That could definitely become cost prohibitive.
-
The Bucks tickets went up so much because the new owners are trying to maximize revenue while Kohl did the "I'm going to make everything accessible" thing. For years the Bucks have been among the cheapest in the NBA. Even if you increase the average ticket price by 50%, they will be in the bottom half.
https://www.barrystickets.com/blog/nba-ticket-prices/
So I don't think we should use the Bucks as an example of how MU is going to go.
-
Sales were 4 times of 2016 1st week & equal to '15 & '16 combined for new season tickets.
Can you restate that?
-
Can you restate that?
Yeah, that initially confused me as well but I think he's saying that this season there's are already four times as many new season ticket holders as last year. This number is approximately equal to the number of new sth's from '15 and '16 combined.
-
Talking to some Bucks STHs, the increases were sharper than many expected. This article (http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/local/milwaukee/2017/07/11/its-price-vs-pleasure-milwaukee-bucks-pitch-season-tickets/451313001/) discusses some of those increases, in the 45-63% range.
Having trouble finding the new Bucks seating chart on my phone, but one thing that stood out was not just the higher price points, but multiple price points in the same section depending on how close you are. So rows A-F for example costing more than Q-Z.
Not sure how MU will handle it, but if my current annual bill of around $1600 jumps to $2400 or more, that'll be a hard sell. And for newer STHs, part of the incentive is the chance to improve your sectional standing. That could definitely become cost prohibitive.
What'll be interesting is whether they try to price the new arena as it's own value or as a value compared to what it was at the BC. What I mean by that is if I have seats in the BC do they have comparable seats in the new arena and price accordingly. Or do they simply say this the arena and this is value of the seat.
I'm thinking it's much more palatable (as least in my mind) to say ok I'm getting a comparable seat to what I was getting before but I'm adding x% in price because of the new arena.
-
I imagine the Bucks are jacking the price, plus multiple years of future increases in one big swoop to introduce the Chaluparena in year 1 .. to set a new pricing "normal." Whether that works for a loser franchise like the Bucks, who knows.
-
I imagine the Bucks are jacking the price, plus multiple years of future increases in one big swoop to introduce the Chaluparena in year 1 .. to set a new pricing "normal." Whether that works for a loser franchise like the Bucks, who knows.
They were in the playoffs last year and appear to be on an uptick. I was actually surprised how exciting they were when I watched their playoff games on TV. The first time I have watched a Buck's game in years.
-
Having trouble finding the new Bucks seating chart on my phone, but one thing that stood out was not just the higher price points, but multiple price points in the same section depending on how close you are. So rows A-F for example costing more than Q-Z.
Not only that, but they are also charging an aisle premium on some lower level seats. I think they were too aggressive with these increases, but I guess we'll see. Between the ticket deals and secondary market, Bucks prices were so depressed over the last decade that the jump seems even more drastic.
MU will have a modest increase, which is understandable given that the rent per game will be close to double. It will be interesting to see how they handle converting the low 400 section STHs, with the increased lower bowl capacity. It would not surprise me to see tiered pricing in those sections as well.
-
Talking to some Bucks STHs, the increases were sharper than many expected. This article (http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/local/milwaukee/2017/07/11/its-price-vs-pleasure-milwaukee-bucks-pitch-season-tickets/451313001/) discusses some of those increases, in the 45-63% range.
Having trouble finding the new Bucks seating chart on my phone, but one thing that stood out was not just the higher price points, but multiple price points in the same section depending on how close you are. So rows A-F for example costing more than Q-Z.
Not sure how MU will handle it, but if my current annual bill of around $1600 jumps to $2400 or more, that'll be a hard sell. And for newer STHs, part of the incentive is the chance to improve your sectional standing. That could definitely become cost prohibitive.
Is that 1600 for just one seat? Then you are paying more than the guy complaining paying 2700 for his seat. He is getting 41 games while you are only getting 16 games.
-
Is that 1600 for just one seat? Then you are paying more than the guy complaining paying 2700 for his seat. He is getting 41 games while you are only getting 16 games.
No, that's two seats. I think it's actually $1573 on the bill, but right in that neighborhood.
-
No, that's two seats. I think it's actually $1573 on the bill, but right in that neighborhood.
My two seats are over $2,700. Season ticket holder's in the preferred seating pay significantly more than that.
-
The Bucks need MU as a tenant way more than MU needs to be a tenant there, it's not even close. I don't know how to say this without sounding like a Chicago snob, but who's filling in those 16 dates if it's not MU? The new arena is competing with United Center, Allstate, Wintrust, Sears Centre for events, in a smaller metropolitan area for concerts/events in the winter. I'm not shocked in the least that Bucks marketing is going hard after the northern suburb crowd. Everything is negotiable, but it'd be incredibly dumb for the Bucks not to get a deal done with MU.
-
(As was said above .. the deal is done.)
.. Yadda yadda, with the BC being demolished, Marquette is left with the Chaluparena, the Al, or fighting UWM for the Mecca. Not a good bargaining position.
-
My two seats are over $2,700. Season ticket holder's in the preferred seating pay significantly more than that.
I'm not quibbling over the current prices, but would you be okay with that turning into $4,000?
Not sure what kind of hikes we'll see. My point was that if they are consistent with the Bucks, we'll probably see bigger jumps than we may expect as well as wider price variances even in the same section.
-
I'm not quibbling over the current prices, but would you be okay with that turning into $4,000?
Not sure what kind of hikes we'll see. My point was that if they are consistent with the Bucks, we'll probably see bigger jumps than we may expect as well as wider price variances even in the same section.
Brew, MU has to be very careful not to price themselves out of the market. They have a limited audience. They simply can't charge $75 or $100 a ticket for guys like you and me and expect any of us to be there. We can all watch on TV for free. But I do agree with you about segmenting the lower bowl by rows and think that's fine. I personally think that those close to the action seats should go at a healthy premium. I also strongly believe that MU's cheap seats are too much and have long advocated for the lowering of upper deck corner and endzone seats.
-
Key to our parking and concession revenue. How split? Right now, I believe MU gets zip in the BC which kept rents lower.
In the Bucks-owned arena, if it remains zip, and the Bucks take more on tickets, that will be tough long term for season ticket holders to absorb for a college product after the luster of the new arena wears off. It also puts a lot of pressure on Wojo to win and win big now.
-
I'm not quibbling over the current prices, but would you be okay with that turning into $4,000?
Not sure what kind of hikes we'll see. My point was that if they are consistent with the Bucks, we'll probably see bigger jumps than we may expect as well as wider price variances even in the same section.
With my reseating donation the tickets cost me more than $4,000. I fear that the hated point system will be changing with the new arena.
-
It can justify some price increase with the new facility but if they increase too much they may accelerate the STH flight that's going on.
Whether they will acknowledge it or not, there is a considerable amount of angst/need for this season to be very successful
The STH flight probably is more due to the quality of team Marquette has put on the floor the past three years as well as the turmoil with coaching and conference.
If the next two years are as good as we think they will become (are you listening Joey Hauser?), I'm confident we will do fine no matter where we go. I would suggest, however, that the pricing issue is important. Milwaukee is NOT Chicago, New York or Los Angeles and the things teams in those markets can do, cannot be done in Milwaukee.
-
The STH flight probably is more due to the quality of team Marquette has put on the floor the past three years as well as the turmoil with coaching and conference.
If the next two years are as good as we think they will become (are you listening Joey Hauser?), I'm confident we will do fine no matter where we go. I would suggest, however, that the pricing issue is important. Milwaukee is NOT Chicago, New York or Los Angeles and the things teams in those markets can do, cannot be done in Milwaukee.
STH is more about the teams play than the prices like you said.
If you have seen any of the tweets, MU was weeks ahead of renewals and almost a month ago had already topped 15-16 and 16-17 years renewals for STH. This year will be an up year.
-
The STH flight probably is more due to the quality of team Marquette has put on the floor the past three years as well as the turmoil with coaching and conference.
If the next two years are as good as we think they will become (are you listening Joey Hauser?), I'm confident we will do fine no matter where we go. I would suggest, however, that the pricing issue is important. Milwaukee is NOT Chicago, New York or Los Angeles and the things teams in those markets can do, cannot be done in Milwaukee.
Bingo.
-
So which teams in the Big East besides MU play ALL their games in a NBA arena? What is DePaul, Butler, Creighton asking for STHs compared to us. Would it be cheaper in the long run to have a facility like Depaul on Campus?
-
So which teams in the Big East besides MU play ALL their games in a NBA arena? What is DePaul, Butler, Creighton asking for STHs compared to us. Would it be cheaper in the long run to have a facility like Depaul on Campus?
I believe only Marquette, Georgetown, and Memphis play all of their games in an NBA arena in all of college basketball.
-
So which teams in the Big East besides MU play ALL their games in a NBA arena? What is DePaul, Butler, Creighton asking for STHs compared to us. Would it be cheaper in the long run to have a facility like Depaul on Campus?
No.
-
So which teams in the Big East besides MU play ALL their games in a NBA arena? What is DePaul, Butler, Creighton asking for STHs compared to us. Would it be cheaper in the long run to have a facility like Depaul on Campus?
The problem you have warrior69 is that no other school in the BEast has an NBA arena within easy walking distance to campus. There is never going to be a circumstance where the economics of the situation will support it. This has been ground covered repeatedly over the years and it has always been true. MU actually did a fabulous job when it designed the Al, a perfect facility for Women's BB and volleyball with outstanding training facilities for all sports.
By way of comparison, Wild Hall is checking in at $108 million. That's for 890 beds to be used every single day during the school year for the next 30-40 years. It took huge effort to raise those funds including borrowing, on something where the existing bed space it is replacing trailed our competition badly. Marquette is simply not dropping that same coin into a sports arena that would be used 18 times a year when it has the NBA's newest facility at it's disposal, now as tenant #2 (up from #3) in the soon to be retired facility.
-
Here's what some folks need to realize. It's simply fortuitous that Marquette is situated where it is with easy access to a state of the art facility. Few other big time private schools have that built in advantage. It is fair to speculate that such an inherent economic advantage relative to our competition is and was a top 2-3 factor in why Marquette basketball has seem historic success. Dollars directly into the program replacing dollars into brick and mortar, one for one. It's a symbiotic relationship that we sometimes take for granted because in all of our lifetimes it has always been true.
-
Brew, MU has to be very careful not to price themselves out of the market. They have a limited audience. They simply can't charge $75 or $100 a ticket for guys like you and me and expect any of us to be there. We can all watch on TV for free. But I do agree with you about segmenting the lower bowl by rows and think that's fine. I personally think that those close to the action seats should go at a healthy premium. I also strongly believe that MU's cheap seats are too much and have long advocated for the lowering of upper deck corner and endzone seats.
I agree that they have to be careful with how they price this. That said, this negotiation becomes tricky because it's dependent on what the Bucks charge for rent. Marquette will have to recoup those fees, and if it's 150% higher, they'll have to make that up somehow.
And bilsu, the price is really irrelevant. The question is how many STHs are willing to pay 150% of current prices? Or 140%? Or whatever it costs. I think 10-20% increases will be relatively easy to sell, but much more than that may price many out of the market, as glow mentioned.
-
The problem you have warrior69 is that no other school in the BEast has an NBA arena within easy walking distance to campus. There is never going to be a circumstance where the economics of the situation will support it. This has been ground covered repeatedly over the years and it has always been true. MU actually did a fabulous job when it designed the Al, a perfect facility for Women's BB and volleyball with outstanding training facilities for all sports.
By way of comparison, Wild Hall is checking in at $108 million. That's for 890 beds to be used every single day during the school year for the next 30-40 years. It took huge effort to raise those funds including borrowing, on something where the existing bed space it is replacing trailed our competition badly. Marquette is simply not dropping that same coin into a sports arena that would be used 18 times a year when it has the NBA's newest facility at it's disposal, now as tenant #2 (up from #3) in the soon to be retired facility.
....but some here are saying if STH see increases of 50% or more they just might stay home and watch on FS1. I have no idea of the economics involved here but STH prices just might have to increase that much just to pay the rent. The new owners of the Bucks as many have stated are just interested in their ROI and not so much invested in the Milwaukee community at large including MU. Please tell me I'm wrong.
-
The Bucks need MU as a tenant way more than MU needs to be a tenant there, it's not even close. I don't know how to say this without sounding like a Chicago snob, but who's filling in those 16 dates if it's not MU? The new arena is competing with United Center, Allstate, Wintrust, Sears Centre for events, in a smaller metropolitan area for concerts/events in the winter. I'm not shocked in the least that Bucks marketing is going hard after the northern suburb crowd. Everything is negotiable, but it'd be incredibly dumb for the Bucks not to get a deal done with MU.
Really? Who has the upper hand? Just where would MU play IF they could not reach a deal? Seems to me MU needs a home and the Bucks know it. MU would have a huge problem if a deal is not reached.
-
....but some here are saying if STH see increases of 50% or more they just might stay home and watch on FS1. I have no idea of the economics involved here but STH prices just might have to increase that much just to pay the rent. The new owners of the Bucks as many have stated are just interested in their ROI and not so much invested in the Milwaukee community at large including MU. Please tell me I'm wrong.
Well, as an economist I can help you. The rent for 18 days can be about whatever compared to the cost associated with owning an appropriate 12,000+ seat facility for 365. It only gets worse if you rent the new arena for 5 or so 'big' conference games now spreading the cost of 13 over that mythical campus arena.
Look, I have little doubt that the university has been disappointed with the Bucks in the negotiation. Mike is all about 'betterment of the overall community' and I believe that some venture capital guys from NYC see limited value in that. They aren't Herb Kohl. That's simply the new reality.
-
MU actually did a fabulous job when it designed the Al, a perfect facility for Women's BB and volleyball with outstanding training facilities for all sports.
MU is a very good job with the Al. I would have like to have seen a sunken floor level to get the capacity from 3700 to around 6. At that capacity, men's bball could have used an on campus arena for select dates each year.
-
MU is a very good job with the Al. I would have like to have seen a sunken floor level to get the capacity from 3700 to around 6. At that capacity, men's bball could have used an on campus arena for select dates each year.
No we couldn't. We have 10,000+ season ticket holders. What, you get a letter saying STAY HOME?
-
Really? Who has the upper hand? Just where would MU play IF they could not reach a deal? Seems to me MU needs a home and the Bucks know it. MU would have a huge problem if a deal is not reached.
Yeah, I thought I was the only one who didn't follow this logic.
The Bucks need us way more than we need them.....and it's not even close?
-
A couple of general thoughts on this:
1) The MECCA and the Bradley Center are a closer walk to the housing at MU than are most Big 10 Athletic Facilities. Sure, neither is on campus but the brisk winter trudge down to the center is an invigorating start to a wonderful basketball season. Same for the Foxconn Centre when it opens a year from now.
2) Yes, I know, they have buses now. Wimps.
3) Of course the Bucks will play hardball. Wouldn't you? It's their arena. The State of Wisconsin gave most of it to them fair and square!
4) Building an arena on campus is stupid. When we are Top 10 again, we'll fill Foxconn like we used to fill the MECCA. I doubt we could replicate that on campus. I know I would never donate for it -- Marquette has too many other more compelling needs, including scholarships.
-
Really? Who has the upper hand? Just where would MU play IF they could not reach a deal? Seems to me MU needs a home and the Bucks know it. MU would have a huge problem if a deal is not reached.
The Bucks certainly had an advantage but it's not unlimited. Remember that public money went into this. I think it was more about the way negotiations went in the past (super easy) relative to now.
Plus folks, just because it took awhile don't assume that the Bucks were holding out for some completely unreasonable number.
One more thing, the elasticity of Marquette ticket demand isn't driven by what the Bucks charge in rent. Sure MU would like to pass it all along to the customers but it might not be able to and might have to absorb some of that as a budget expense just like those free pint glasses. MU will charge what it charges for tickets because it believes that price will maximize its revenue. If they double the price and the season ticket base drops to 7,000, heads will roll before the season even starts. Let's give 'em some credit for figuring this all out in the next 10 months.
-
No we couldn't. We have 10,000+ season ticket holders. What, you get a letter saying STAY HOME?
Doesn't Nova have more than 6K STHs? What do they do for games at the Pavilion?
Not sure on GT or Memphis--would bet not.
-
Yeah, I thought I was the only one who didn't follow this logic.
You aren't. His logic was completely backward.
-
Doesn't Nova have more than 6K STHs? What do they do for games at the Pavilion?
Not sure on GT or Memphis--would bet not.
Nova's attendance last year was 8,119 per game, 59th in the country. Now they might fully subscribe their STH allotment at the capacity of the Pavilion but no, they don't have a full season ticket base that exceeds that building.
Frankly, THAT could become a problem for someone like Nova. They could realistically face a decision where they were forced to abandon their on campus facility if demand got too high. Think about that for a moment.
-
Nova's attendance last year was 8,119 per game, 59th in the country. Now they might fully subscribe their STH allotment at the capacity of the Pavilion but no, they don't have a full season ticket base that exceeds that building.
Frankly, THAT could become a problem for someone like Nova. They could realistically face a decision where they were forced to abandon their on campus facility if demand got too high. Think about that for a moment.
Uhhh...you don't think Duke could sell twice as many season tickets as Cameron holds? Teams adjust prices based on supply and demand.
If MU had a viable on-campus facility, they'd just price the full-season package to accommodate the supply/demand variables. People who didn't want to part with that kind of money could buy packages that just include games at the bigger arena.
-
A couple of general thoughts on this:
1) The MECCA and the Bradley Center are a closer walk to the housing at MU than are most Big 10 Athletic Facilities. Sure, neither is on campus but the brisk winter trudge down to the center is an invigorating start to a wonderful basketball season. Same for the Foxconn Centre when it opens a year from now.
2) Yes, I know, they have buses now. Wimps.
3) Of course the Bucks will play hardball. Wouldn't you? It's their arena. The State of Wisconsin gave most of it to them fair and square!
4) Building an arena on campus is stupid. When we are Top 10 again, we'll fill Foxconn like we used to fill the MECCA. I doubt we could replicate that on campus. I know I would never donate for it -- Marquette has too many other more compelling needs, including scholarships.
2.1) And no Hegarty's, Good Time Charlie's, or O'P's to stop off at for a few dozen liquid warm-ups.
-
The Chaluparena wouldn't exist if it were not for (the presidential aspirations of) Gov. Walker, who did attend Marquette for 3.5 years. One would hope someone at MU tugged on his sport coat and mentioned the whole leasing thing to him.
-
Nova's attendance last year was 8,119 per game, 59th in the country. Now they might fully subscribe their STH allotment at the capacity of the Pavilion but no, they don't have a full season ticket base that exceeds that building.
Frankly, THAT could become a problem for someone like Nova. They could realistically face a decision where they were forced to abandon their on campus facility if demand got too high. Think about that for a moment.
8119 STHs?
-
Nova's attendance last year was 8,119 per game, 59th in the country. Now they might fully subscribe their STH allotment at the capacity of the Pavilion but no, they don't have a full season ticket base that exceeds that building.
Frankly, THAT could become a problem for someone like Nova. They could realistically face a decision where they were forced to abandon their on campus facility if demand got too high. Think about that for a moment.
Well...I'm not sure about this. First, the Pavilion seats 6,500. So they are drawing more fans per game than the Pavilion seats. Second, Villanova has a wait-list for Season Tickets. Fans that desire seats have to pay $50 per year to stay on the wait list and when a slot opens up, you are limited to two seats.
It looks like there is another package that gets you tickets to Wells-Fargo games only. It is non-renewable (so you purchase it annually with no carryover) and doesn't have anything to do with actually being a full Season Ticket Holder.
Based on that, I'd guess 'Nova does have STHs fully selling out the Pavilion and fans that can't get off the wait list get to purchase the more limited Wells Fargo package until their name gets called.
-
Well...I'm not sure about this. First, the Pavilion seats 6,500. So they are drawing more fans per game than the Pavilion seats. Second, Villanova has a wait-list for Season Tickets. Fans that desire seats have to pay $50 per year to stay on the wait list and when a slot opens up, you are limited to two seats.
It looks like there is another package that gets you tickets to Wells-Fargo games only. It is non-renewable (so you purchase it annually with no carryover) and doesn't have anything to do with actually being a full Season Ticket Holder.
Based on that, I'd guess 'Nova does have STHs fully selling out the Pavilion and fans that can't get off the wait list get to purchase the more limited Wells Fargo package until their name gets called.
Villanova is doing a $60 million renovation of the Pavilion this year and they will be playing their games at Wells Fargo . They are expected to return to Pavilion next year.
-
Well...I'm not sure about this. First, the Pavilion seats 6,500. So they are drawing more fans per game than the Pavilion seats. Second, Villanova has a wait-list for Season Tickets. Fans that desire seats have to pay $50 per year to stay on the wait list and when a slot opens up, you are limited to two seats.
It looks like there is another package that gets you tickets to Wells-Fargo games only. It is non-renewable (so you purchase it annually with no carryover) and doesn't have anything to do with actually being a full Season Ticket Holder.
Based on that, I'd guess 'Nova does have STHs fully selling out the Pavilion and fans that can't get off the wait list get to purchase the more limited Wells Fargo package until their name gets called.
Do the math. 6500 at every Pavilion game and then 15,000+ at the handful at the 76ers joint equals 8119. Now perhaps they have two packages but the bottom line is that MU isn't playing any season ticket games in a 6,500 seat arena. When we had that fill in game a couple years back that was a separate ticket and NOT part of any ST package.
-
Do the math. 6500 at every Pavilion game and then 15,000+ at the handful at the 76ers joint equals 8119. Now perhaps they have two packages but the bottom line is that MU isn't playing any season ticket games in a 6,500 seat arena. When we had that fill in game a couple years back that was a separate ticket and NOT part of any ST package.
I completely agree we aren't building any 6,500 seat arena. I think if we did an on-campus arena like that, it would have to be at least 8,000 and probably more like 10,000. Though if they limited STHs to only 2 seats per account, it could make a smaller number more reasonable.
Villanova played 15 games last year. Drew 8,119. 11 of those were at the Pavilion, 4 were at Wells-Fargo. If they were at capacity for every Pavilion game, that means they averaged 12,571 at Wells-Fargo. Seems like a fairly reasonable figure. I think it's perfectly possible, even likely that they exceed the STH base of the Pavilion with full STHs there and partial STHs overflowing to the few games they play at Wells-Fargo.
-
I completely agree we aren't building any 6,500 seat arena. I think if we did an on-campus arena like that, it would have to be at least 8,000 and probably more like 10,000.
Neve, ever, never!
We drew 10,980 back when we played at the Arena. Every night.
Geez, sounds like DePaul and its new Lenti-Ponsetto Centre near McCormick Place (yes, I know that is not on campus).
P-L-E-A-S-E!!!!!!!!
If the team is any good, we will draw about 16,000 for conference games and 12,000 to 16,000 for non-cons, depending on how good the opponent is. The notion that we can slide backward to a small arena -- notwithstanding Duke -- is an admission that we never again will be among College Basketball's elite. I don't buy it.
Cut the deal with the Bucks and move on.
-
Villanova is doing a $60 million renovation of the Pavilion this year and they will be playing their games at Wells Fargo . They are expected to return to Pavilion next year.
...with no increase in seating capacity. Go figure, for a very recent NC title.
-
...with no increase in seating capacity. Go figure, for a very recent NC title.
Dukies are rich. They can throw away money for no reason. Not saying a renovation isn't warranted.
-
Neve, ever, never!
We drew 10,980 back when we played at the Arena. Every night.
It's a delicate balance. If you have a sold out arena there will actually be demand for every game, including non-con. Play 10-12 on campus and 6 at the Silk Exotic Entertainment Center and we can still average over 12k per game.
For Marquette, they would be able to keep all home revenues while also having the opportunity to play in Milwaukee when they host games at the Silk.
Raising money would be a consideration. A 10,000 seat venue would probably cost $50-60M, which is significant but not an impossible sum.
There are pros and cons. I don't expect Marquette to go in that direction, but I certainly wouldn't oppose it.
-
It's a delicate balance. If you have a sold out arena there will actually be demand for every game, including non-con. Play 10-12 on campus and 6 at the Silk Exotic Entertainment Center and we can still average over 12k per game.
For Marquette, they would be able to keep all home revenues while also having the opportunity to play in Milwaukee when they host games at the Silk.
Raising money would be a consideration. A 10,000 seat venue would probably cost $50-60M, which is significant but not an impossible sum.
There are pros and cons. I don't expect Marquette to go in that direction, but I certainly wouldn't oppose it.
It's more costly than that when you consider the potential fund-raising opportunity cost. Presumably many of those donors would also have given their money elsewhere at the University if asked.
Now if you could find a donor that would cover 100%, including a healthy endowment for maintenance, and that was the ONLY thing they were interested in, it would be one thing. And I would make it about 11,000 or so. Attendance isn't everything. Atmosphere makes a difference too.
-
Gang, the issue is that basketball is a unifying force for the Marquette faithful. The way football is at many D1/Power 5 conference schools.
If we went to a 10,000 seat arena, we would sell out every night, mostly with season tickets. The cost for an alum who sought to come a couple of times a year (from Chicago, Green Bay or Madison) would be ridiculous and you'd just push more fans to television.
Since the Bradley Center opened in 1986, we've been a strong draw and in recent years been among the top draws in college basketball. We need to honor that tradition among our alums and our community.
-
Since the Bradley Center opened in 1986, we've been a strong draw and in recent years been among the top draws in college basketball. We need to honor that tradition among our alums and our community.
1988. We're a big draw, but let's be honest, those games when we've got less than 5,000 fans in the BC makes it look like a ghost town.
As more fans make the decision to stay home, it may eventually be more advantageous for Marquette to have its own facility that it can capitalize on financially while also allowing for potential NCAA home court advantage every 3-4 years.
Extra unfilled seats just for the sake of it isn't a benefit. And smaller, more intimate, snakepit type arenas can be a lot of fun.
-
I think having a full, 10,000 seat arena is preferable to 12,000 fans in a 18,000 seat arena...assuming you could make it revenue neutral.
-
1988. We're a big draw, but let's be honest, those games when we've got less than 5,000 fans in the BC makes it look like a ghost town.
As more fans make the decision to stay home, it may eventually be more advantageous for Marquette to have its own facility that it can capitalize on financially while also allowing for potential NCAA home court advantage every 3-4 years.
Extra unfilled seats just for the sake of it isn't a benefit. And smaller, more intimate, snakepit type arenas can be a lot of fun.
Schedule properly and put an exciting team on the court and that does not happen!
Full disclosure: As a kid I spent a lot of time at Vanderbilt's Memorial Gym. Huge -- 15,861 seats -- and a snake pit to end all snake pits. And the faithful came, just like they do at Marquette!
-
...with no increase in seating capacity. Go figure, for a very recent NC title.
They said it would cost 125 Million to increase capacity. They had a hard time raising the 60 for the renovations.
-
I think having a full, 10,000 seat arena is preferable to 12,000 fans in a 18,000 seat arena...assuming you could make it revenue neutral.
I have always felt that way too. Back in C-USA days, I saw MU play at UAB Arena (8,500) and the crowd was awesome. They played a few games at the Birmingham-Jefferson Civic Center (17,500), but rarely drew well enough to justify it. I've always thought our ideal size would be in the 10,000-12,000 seat range.
I get that that isn't really an option for MU, but it'd be cool.
-
I have always felt that way too. Back in C-USA days, I saw MU play at UAB Arena (8,500) and the crowd was awesome. They played a few games at the Birmingham-Jefferson Civic Center (17,500), but rarely drew well enough to justify it. I've always thought our ideal size would be in the 10,000-12,000 seat range.
I get that that isn't really an option for MU, but it'd be cool.
We aren't UAB.
We don't plan for arenas for the 10,000 that show up for the Grambling game. We build for the 15,500+ who show for most Big East games. Or the 17,000 who show up for the Badgers, Georgia, Purdue and most other Big 10 teams that come to Milwaukee.
We plan for the notion that we're going to have a great team and that we're going to be a pit with 16,000 to 17,000 rabid fans. Hopefully, we're building for a time when we again win 40, 50 and even 60+ games in a row at home (it's possible). We'll need the seats then. Period.
-
We aren't UAB.
We don't plan for arenas for the 10,000 that show up for the Grambling game. We build for the 15,500+ who show for most Big East games. Or the 17,000 who show up for the Badgers, Georgia, Purdue and most other Big 10 teams that come to Milwaukee.
We plan for the notion that we're going to have a great team and that we're going to be a pit with 16,000 to 17,000 rabid fans. Hopefully, we're building for a time when we again win 40, 50 and even 60+ games in a row at home (it's possible). We'll need the seats then. Period.
No kidding. Did you bother to read the last sentence of my post?
-
I would love a 10,000 seat on campus arena. Work out a deal with the bucks to put 5 to 6 of the biggest games at the Silk Center and play the rest on campus. Make the on campus arena a snake pit to get the true home court advantage and keep the Silk Center so you can sell recruits on playing in an NBA arena. Best of both worlds. That of course is a pipe dream at this point. But would be cool.
-
Think big, play big, win big.
-
We aren't UAB.
We don't plan for arenas for the 10,000 that show up for the Grambling game. We build for the 15,500+ who show for most Big East games. Or the 17,000 who show up for the Badgers, Georgia, Purdue and most other Big 10 teams that come to Milwaukee.
We plan for the notion that we're going to have a great team and that we're going to be a pit with 16,000 to 17,000 rabid fans. Hopefully, we're building for a time when we again win 40, 50 and even 60+ games in a row at home (it's possible). We'll need the seats then. Period.
60+ games in a row at home!
4-5 years without a home loss? Yeah, it's possible. ::)
-
60+ games in a row at home!
4-5 years without a home loss? Yeah, it's possible. ::)
We did it a long, long time ago!
-
Have you seen our schedule in the last 20 years?
Yeah, Drake and Loyola have been replaced by Nova and X.
-
We aren't UAB.
We don't plan for arenas for the 10,000 that show up for the Grambling game. We build for the 15,500+ who show for most Big East games. Or the 17,000 who show up for the Badgers, Georgia, Purdue and most other Big 10 teams that come to Milwaukee.
We plan for the notion that we're going to have a great team and that we're going to be a pit with 16,000 to 17,000 rabid fans. Hopefully, we're building for a time when we again win 40, 50 and even 60+ games in a row at home (it's possible). We'll need the seats then. Period.
You never build for what you need at your max.
-
Here's hoping that the intimacy of the new arena adds to the experience. Because we're never building some folks 'dream' 8,000 seat arena on campus.
-
They said it would cost 125 Million to increase capacity. They had a hard time raising the 60 for the renovations.
So how much does MU pay for the BC every year and how much will the new arena cost MU each year. If MU pays 5 million a year to rent (about 300k per game) then it would be more economical to rent but if they pay 10 then a separate arena on campus might make sense.
Its not about a dream arena on campus it is what makes sense economically.
-
So how much does MU pay for the BC every year and how much will the new arena cost MU each year. If MU pays 5 million a year to rent (about 300k per game) then it would be more economical to rent but if they pay 10 then a separate arena on campus might make sense.
Its not about a dream arena on campus it is what makes sense economically.
You are crazy to think that MU could build, staff and maintain an arena at a net cost of $5 million/year. And that is assuming that there is a place to actually put it on campus.
-
You never build for what you need at your max.
Nor do you build it for your 8-10 worst games.
In general, I understand why people would like more intimacy but it sure seems like an expensive solution to something that really isn't a problem.
-
You are crazy to think that MU could build, staff and maintain an arena at a net cost of $5 million/year.
Why is that? Revenue from parking, concessions and other events outside of MU basketball would easily cover $5M a year. DePaul is building a 175M stadium, although they somehow got the city to pay 100M of it. This after they turned down the United Center to play for free.
I still think it's a better idea to play in a pro arena though. Also, I don't think the new owners have as much leverage as some suggest. Why would they turn away 20 events a year? It makes sense for both sides.
-
You are crazy to think that MU could build, staff and maintain an arena at a net cost of $5 million/year. And that is assuming that there is a place to actually put it on campus.
I said it makes more sense to rent at 5 M a year, at 10 M a year it may still be better to rent, but you are getting closer to the break even cost of an on campus facility vs. renting. I am basing this off the 125 M Nova estimate to build a 12K seating facility. At 5M a year rent, it would take 25 years to spend 125M, so better to rent, at 10 M a year it would take 12.5 years to spent 125M. The BC is only 30 years old and is on the chopping block but if the rent gets to high for the new arena, an on campus facility may be a reasonable alternative.
-
I don't understand why people want this mythical on-campus arena. We have the good fortune to be blocks away from a world-class facility. When the new place is built, we get to attend games in what will be the greatest basketball arena in the world (for a year or two until the next NBA arena is built). Why would anyone want to build an on-campus arena, which would end up being a bare-bones facility compared to what the Bucks are building.
-
Reasons:
* General dislike of the NBA, Bucks, and their ownership
* Large arena = lots of empty seats for many games
* NBA arena comes at a high cost
But whatever. Pissing into the wind at this point.
-
I don't understand why people want this mythical on-campus arena. We have the good fortune to be blocks away from a world-class facility. When the new place is built, we get to attend games in what will be the greatest basketball arena in the world (for a year or two until the next NBA arena is built). Why would anyone want to build an on-campus arena, which would end up being a bare-bones facility compared to what the Bucks are building.
I agree, college recruits love to play in NBA arenas, who would not. The amenities will be huge compared to a no frill arena like the Kohl Center. It is nice, do not
get me wrong, but the Bucks arena will be out of sight. It will be a great recruiting tool for MU.
-
I don't understand why people want this mythical on-campus arena. We have the good fortune to be blocks away from a world-class facility. When the new place is built, we get to attend games in what will be the greatest basketball arena in the world (for a year or two until the next NBA arena is built). Why would anyone want to build an on-campus arena, which would end up being a bare-bones facility compared to what the Bucks are building.
Here are benefits I see to an on-campus arena:
.
- Control: What happens if the Bucks move? If rent doubles? An on-campus facility with updates every few decades could be an answer to any of those types of problems. Cameron Indoor was built 77 years ago and is still doing the job.
- Environment: We've only exceeded an 14,000 fans 11 of 30 years the BC was open, and only exceeded 16,000 twice. We will never routinely sell out a venue like the Silk. However, a 12,000 seat on-campus arena would've averaged sell-outs 24/30 years.
- NCAA Success: The Badgers have benefited from us hosting, yet they never return the favor. An on-campus arena would allow us to play here when Milwaukee hosts.
- Silk is Still There: We could still rent out the Silk for big games. Villanova on a Saturday? Wisconsin coming to town? Finally have a home-and-home with Notre Dame? Book us into the Silk. We could still play big games there, have that environment, and sell a NBA arena, but do so in a way that is more beneficial to us than playing in front of empty seats 5-6 times per year.
- What if We're Bad: I understand the "we can draw 15,000 if we're good" argument, but what about when we're not? In a smaller, on-campus venue, MU would pocket all the revenue and would be selling out whether we were good, bad, or in-between.
.
I don't expect it to happen, but there's plenty of benefit to having an on-campus arena. However, it's a plan that looks more at how we would benefit over the next 40-50 years and not the next 10. Not a lot of people like to look that far ahead these days.
-
Shouldn't we just lump the on-campus arena in with the "why doesn't Marquette start football?" threads?
-
Uhhh...you don't think Duke could sell twice as many season tickets as Cameron holds?
Just wanted to comment on this... no, I don't think they could sell that many season tickets. Duke's local following is not that big.
-
Shouldn't we just lump the on-campus arena in with the "why doesn't Marquette start football?" threads?
Maybe. But its less of a pipe dream than football is.
-
I do not think there is anyway MU would build their own arena.
I could see MU dropping buy games to do more home and homes with teams like Notre Dame, Louisville, etc.
This is of course is assuming the arena rent is per game and not per season.
Getting rid of four bunny games and replacing them with two high level home games would save two nights arena rental and four $100,000 payments for buy games, which would partially offset the loss of ticket revenue from two less home games. Adding attractive games would result in higher attendance for those games, which also would offset some of the lost revenue for less home games. A more attractive ticket package could lead to more season tickets sold and would presumably allow for a higher per game price. Nobody complains about paying $50 to see a game against Notre Dame and nobody likes paying $50 to see Chicago St.
There would be the additional cost of traveling for two more road games.
Moving four buy games to the Al would result in a significant loss of ticket revenue as you would have to separate them from the regular season ticket package. A certain amount of tickets in the Al would be set aside for students, which means there are even less tickets available for season ticket holders.
-
I do not think there is anyway MU would build their own arena.
I could see MU dropping buy games to do more home and homes with teams like Notre Dame, Louisville, etc.
This is of course is assuming the arena rent is per game and not per season.
Getting rid of four bunny games and replacing them with two high level home games would save two nights arena rental and four $100,000 payments for buy games, which would partially offset the loss of ticket revenue from two less home games. Adding attractive games would result in higher attendance for those games, which also would offset some of the lost revenue for less home games. A more attractive ticket package could lead to more season tickets sold and would presumably allow for a higher per game price. Nobody complains about paying $50 to see a game against Notre Dame and nobody likes paying $50 to see Chicago St.
Oh boy. Umm...no way. First of all, neither ND nor Louisville are answering our calls. They don't want the series, no matter how much we may.
I could see them adding one, but they need to fill dates. Marquette had 16 home games in 2013-14, but are routinely playing 18-19 games at home. That's even with the fewer games (30 total) the past two years. 18 last year (including the exhibition) and 18 this year. Marquette is counting on those games as revenue.
I don't think we'll see anything with less than 18 games (including exhibition) going forward. That means at least 8 home games in the non-con. Expecting 3 at neutral sites, one true road game (UW/Gavitt), that really doesn't leave much room for flexibility. You could have two additional alternating home-and-homes (so Georgia, LSU, Vandy, those types of series) but no more than that because you'd expect one to be on the road. Or a neutral site game on the road. And even then, everything else has to be at home.
There would be the additional cost of traveling for two more road games.
Moving four buy games to the Al would result in a significant loss of ticket revenue as you would have to separate them from the regular season ticket package. A certain amount of tickets in the Al would be set aside for students, which means there are even less tickets available for season ticket holders.
Not a chance in hell they'll move any more games to the Al. People who got to see MU/Alabama A&M got to see what will be a once-in-a-lifetime experience. That game dropped us out of the top-20 in attendance that year. We averaged 13,657 (22nd in the country) because of it, but averaged 14,318 in the other 16 games, which would have been 19th.
I also think an on-campus arena is unlikely,
-
That Alabama A&M drew 3080 at The Al. And that was with the novelty of it all. Woof, woof.
-
I also think an on-campus arena is unlikely,
Understatement of the year.
-
That Alabama A&M drew 3080 at The Al. And that was with the novelty of it all. Woof, woof.
Chick and i had a fantastic time. Started with Chili, ended at Caf's. But it's definitely novelty.
-
Here's hoping that the intimacy of the new arena adds to the experience. Because we're never building some folks 'dream' 8,000 seat arena on campus.
You're right... because the Thunderdome is going to seat ~11,000-12,000. Marquette will still play the bigger conference home games (e.g. Nova, G-Town, Xavier and Duke) at the Fox-hole (which is roughly what the new arena will resemble in 20 years), but I envision that most of the non-con games and several of the weeknight conference games will be at the Thunderdome.
"But Benny.... how can this happen when MU - coming off four national championships in 18 years - most-assuredly will have demand for more than the Thunderdome can hold?" Quit whining. Technically, MU already has two classes of STH's: full season and 5-gamers; so when the Thunderdome opens, the change will be minimal... some will get full season and the rest will get Hole-only.
-
Think big, play big, win big.
GTST, ai na?
-
You're right... because the Thunderdome is going to seat ~11,000-12,000. Marquette will still play the bigger conference home games (e.g. Nova, G-Town, Xavier and Duke) at the Fox-hole (which is roughly what the new arena will resemble in 20 years), but I envision that most of the non-con games and several of the weeknight conference games will be at the Thunderdome.
"But Benny.... how can this happen when MU - coming off four national championships in 18 years - most-assuredly will have demand for more than the Thunderdome can hold?" Quit whining. Technically, MU already has two classes of STH's: full season and 5-gamers; so when the Thunderdome opens, the change will be minimal... some will get full season and the rest will get Hole-only.
Yeah, the university construction plan for the next 30+ years is outlined in the Master Plan. I've seen it in an official capacity. Funny, I somehow missed that arena thing. ::)
Sometimes scoop cracks me up.
-
Man, I stepped out of this thread for a hot minute and a lot of insanity happens. I get that there are benefits to having an on-campus arena, but there is no equation or theory of economic benefit that would ever result in a positive recommendation for MU building an on-campus arena.
Just full stop, an on-campus arena for MU men's basketball does not and will never make any economic sense.
-
Everyone is overlooking one of the greatest benefits of playing off campus: alcohol.
Being able to imbibe at a game has definitely helped our attendance numbers over the years. Nowadays, with almost every game available on TV, you will lose more STHs if you make the game dry on campus.
-
Man, I stepped out of this thread for a hot minute and a lot of insanity happens. I get that there are benefits to having an on-campus arena, but there is no equation or theory of economic benefit that would ever result in a positive recommendation for MU building an on-campus arena.
Just full stop, an on-campus arena for MU men's basketball does not and will never make any economic sense.
Doc, DWade, Jimmy, Jae and a handful of others don't have enough to do with their $millions and decide to donate the money for an on-campus stadium. Marquette gets all the revenues. Hey, you didn't say realistic theory of economic benefits!
-
Everyone is overlooking one of the greatest benefits of playing off campus: alcohol.
Being able to imbibe at a game has definitely helped our attendance numbers over the years. Nowadays, with almost every game available on TV, you will lose more STHs if you make the game dry on campus.
You can sell alcohol in on-campus arenas.
-
You can sell alcohol in on-campus arenas.
Yes. It's just at NCAA events that no alcohol can be served. On campus, its up to the school.
-
Doc, DWade, Jimmy, Jae and a handful of others don't have enough to do with their $millions and decide to donate the money for an on-campus stadium. Marquette gets all the revenues. Hey, you didn't say realistic theory of economic benefits!
Yeah, but even then, if a facility is dropped on campus(replaces the Al let's say) totally paid for out of generosity of NBA player salaries and you once the multiples are fully adulting.....the operating cost of such a facility will exceed the revenue generated by a limited number of "performance" dates on the calendar. Even if you try to use the facility for non-MU events, you are competing with at least 4 or 5 other venues depending on the event type (new BC, old Mecca, Pabst, Marcus, Milwaukee Amphitheater, etc)
Putting up the building isn't the issue so much as running the building.
-
You can sell alcohol in on-campus arenas.
No proof, but I highly doubt MU would allow alcohol sales if it were brought on campus. They can get away with it at the BC because A) off campus B) they can hide behind the lack of knowledge by consumers that the school determines the alcohol sales versus the venue.
-
No proof, but I highly doubt MU would allow alcohol sales if it were brought on campus. They can get away with it at the BC because A) off campus B) they can hide behind the lack of knowledge by consumers that the school determines the alcohol sales versus the venue.
Again, it's really up to the school on campus.
-
Again, it's really up to the school on campus.
I know, but my point is, if it's on campus I bet MU would say no to alcohol....it would be tough for them to justify with their efforts to de-alcohol campus activities
-
Man, I stepped out of this thread for a hot minute and a lot of insanity happens. I get that there are benefits to having an on-campus arena, but there is no equation or theory of economic benefit that would ever result in a positive recommendation for MU building an on-campus arena.
Just full stop, an on-campus arena for MU men's basketball does not and will never make any economic sense.
Pretty smart for a dumb engineer. ;D
-
Pretty smart for a dumb engineer. ;D
(https://images.gr-assets.com/hostedimages/1393357774ra/8700054.gif)
-
I'm amazed how many people in this thread can't distinguish somebody saying "it would be cool if" from "let's break ground on this sucker."
Most of us who have been talking about a nice 10,000-12,000 seat on campus arena have only been saying "it would be cool if...."
-
I'm amazed how many people in this thread can't distinguish somebody saying "it would be cool if" from "let's break ground on this sucker."
Most of us who have been talking about a nice 10,000-12,000 seat on campus arena have only been saying "it would be cool if...."
Not everyone.
As I said in one of the many, many other threads addressing this topic, even if someone swooped in and offered to pay for costs of the construction of the building, along with establishing an endowment that would pay for upkeep into perpetuity, I am confident that Marquette pull out all the stops to try to steer them into a more worthwhile project.
And no one has been able to answer this question: Where would Marquette put the damn thing? There is literally no practical place closer than the new arena.
Also, it would be really cool if tuition were free. But that's not going to happen, either.
-
I'm amazed how many people in this thread can't distinguish somebody saying "it would be cool if" from "let's break ground on this sucker."
Most of us who have been talking about a nice 10,000-12,000 seat on campus arena have only been saying "it would be cool if...."
Just my opinion, but I actually don't think it would be that cool...on top of the practical limitations.
-
Not everyone.
As I said in one of the many, many other threads addressing this topic, even if someone swooped in and offered to pay for costs of the construction of the building, along with establishing an endowment that would pay for upkeep into perpetuity, I am confident that Marquette pull out all the stops to try to steer them into a more worthwhile project.
And no one has been able to answer this question: Where would Marquette put the damn thing? There is literally no practical place closer than the new arena.
Also, it would be really cool if tuition were free. But that's not going to happen, either.
You made my point. By asking practical, real-world questions (like "where would they put the damn thing?"), you're acting as though I'm saying "let's break ground on this sucker."
-
Not everyone.
As I said in one of the many, many other threads addressing this topic, even if someone swooped in and offered to pay for costs of the construction of the building, along with establishing an endowment that would pay for upkeep into perpetuity, I am confident that Marquette pull out all the stops to try to steer them into a more worthwhile project.
And no one has been able to answer this question: Where would Marquette put the damn thing? There is literally no practical place closer than the new arena.
Also, it would be really cool if tuition were free. But that's not going to happen, either.
You made my point. By asking practical, real-world questions (like "where would they put the damn thing?"), you're acting as though I'm saying "let's break ground on this sucker." I'm not....
-
Partner with Potawatomi Casino, put it in Valley Fields. Call it .. "The Pot."
Then they can fill the venue with all the Supertramp tribute bands they want the other 345 dates a year.
-
I'm amazed how many people in this thread can't distinguish somebody saying "it would be cool if" from "let's break ground on this sucker."
Most of us who have been talking about a nice 10,000-12,000 seat on campus arena have only been saying "it would be cool if...."
Difference of opinion I suppose, but I just don't think an on-campus arena would be that cool. I really like all the conveniences of using the Bucks arena, including easy parking, 50+ bars/restaurants within a few blocks, multiple hotels within a few blocks, great concessions, great scoreboard. We have a really unique game-day experience with the downtown location and a college/pro hybrid atmosphere. I think we'd lose that with an on-campus arena, and then we'd just be a below average college atmosphere.
-
Partner with Potawatomi Casino, put it in Valley Fields. Call it .. "The Pot."
Then they can fill the venue with all the Supertramp tribute bands they want the other 345 dates a year.
....but only after we go back to WARRIORS!
-
I'm amazed how many people in this thread can't distinguish somebody saying "it would be cool if" from "let's break ground on this sucker."
Most of us who have been talking about a nice 10,000-12,000 seat on campus arena have only been saying "it would be cool if...."
OK, so just rename the thread the utterly useless mental masturbation thread and then we can move on. I mean what the hell is the point of talking about all the possible benefits of some thing that will never, ever happen.....especially if everyone taking part in the conversation knows it won't happen?
-
OK, so just rename the thread the utterly useless mental masturbation thread and then we can move on. I mean what the hell is the point of talking about all the possible benefits of some thing that will never, ever happen.....especially if everyone taking part in the conversation knows it won't happen?
You do realize that you aren't required to read every post made here right?
-
You do realize that you aren't required to read every post made here right?
Maybe he keeps hoping it will be an actual post about the new facility.
-
Maybe he keeps hoping it will be an actual post about the new facility.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/wMY3LjQQMqo5W/giphy.gif)
-
....but only after we go back to WARRIORS!
Rename the school to Potawatomi University. There are only a few Jesuits left anyway.
-
Rename the school to Potawatomi University. There are only a few Jesuits left anyway.
Actually that already kinda exists. It's where Concordia used to be before it moved to Mequon.
http://www.potawatomibdc.com/wgema-campus/
-
Yeah, the university construction plan for the next 30+ years is outlined in the Master Plan. I've seen it in an official capacity. Funny, I somehow missed that arena thing. ::)
Sometimes scoop cracks me up.
A lot can change in 30+ years, especially after 4 natties and winning Powerball ticket.
-
You do realize that you aren't required to read every post made here right?
You take that back.
-
Maybe he keeps hoping it will be an actual post about the new facility.
Yes because no topic has ever strayed before...
-
OK, so just rename the thread the utterly useless mental masturbation thread and then we can move on.
There are already too many threads on Scoop that should have that title....
-
ND sucks
-
Crean sucks
-
Article in Chicago Tribune on new facility. The comments section is worth reading.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/basketball/ct-milwaukee-arena-greenstein-spt-0716-20170715-story.html
-
Article in Chicago Tribune on new facility. The comments section is worth reading.
It really isn't...