Embarrassing crowd

[Tugg Speedman]

I certainly buy the priority argument.
Most importantly, it's a two hour window. It wouldn't be that hard -- even during a testing week -- to schedule the studying to where a basketball game can be your break. In fact, my guess is it would be beneficial for the mind.

20% to 25% of the students agree with this.  The rest have other priorities for that study break.

I think 20% to 25% is very high and show supprt.

[Aughnanure]

Say what you want, but this doesnt look good - even if its 5 mins before the game.

[Henry Sugar]

Say what you want, but this doesnt look good - even if its 5 mins before the game.

The students would come out if Tom Crean were still coach.

[dgies9156]

I drove up for the game from Chicago. Left work early to get my son and his friend to come with me. The game was wonderful and the team was outstanding. I didn't give a damn whether the Arena was filled or not.

Perhaps we were expecting the Al days, when he knew he was successful when the last seat in the last row was filled. Well, as already has been pointed out, Al filled an arena with 10.782 seats. At issue is whether those Marquette teams could have filled THIS arena?

My own view is that given Marquette and the Milwaukee Bucks, plus that loser school on the East Side, there may be too much basketball for a city the size of Milwaukee. The question that ought to be asked is whether Marquette or anyone could fill the Bradley Center on a weekday night without a Top 5 opponent?

Is Milwaukee worthy of a Marquette-caliber team?

[Tugg Speedman]

The students would come out if Tom Crean were still coach.

We should fire Buzz, and do it before the Georgetown game.

[Tugg Speedman]

Say what you want, but this doesnt look good - even if its 5 mins before the game.

The clock is 6:55 so it is 12 minutes before the game, not 5.  Yes those 7 minutes matter and it was a later arriving crowd.  Where is the 7:30 picture?

[warriorchick]

The students would come out if Tom Crean were still coach.

I don't know why you would say that.  The students love, love, love Buzz.  And I would bet that if, during his handshaking with the student section at the beginning if the game, someone said, "Hey, Buzz, I blew off studying for tomorrow's Biochem midterm to be here!", he'd respond with, "What the hell are you doing here?  You should be at the library!"

[Aughnanure]

The clock is 6:55 so it is 12 minutes before the game, not 5.  Yes those 7 minutes matter and it was a later arriving crowd.  Where is the 7:30 picture?

Its from Anonymous Eagle, I'm 800 miles away.

[Dr. Blackheart]

Everyone is missing the most obvious answer here:  the BC started policing the student drinking in line a couple of years ago, so the social joy of waiting in 5 degree weather for two hours to get a seat in the lower bowl just doesn't have the same impact.  Students have become soft hairy wet cats now-a-days.

Hell, back in the day, I would go pick a bar fight with a longshoreman pre-game as a warm-up.

[Dr. Blackheart]

I don't know why you would say that.  The students love, love, love Buzz.  And I would bet that if, during his handshaking with the student section at the beginning if the game, someone said, "Hey, Buzz, I blew off studying for tomorrow's Biochem midterm to be here!", he'd respond with, "What the hell are you doing here?  You should be at the library!"

Sugar doesn't swing with teal.

[Aughnanure]

Everyone is missing the most obvious answer here:  the BC started policing the student drinking in line a couple of years ago, so the social joy of waiting in 5 degree weather for two hours to get a seat in the lower bowl just doesn't have the same impact.  Students have become soft hairy wet cats now-a-days.

Hell, back in the day, I would go pick a bar fight with a longshoreman pre-game as a warm-up.

Is this true? Cause if so this makes much more sense than "the kids are studying" argument. Back in the Three Amigo days, it was hard to get a lower bowl seat if you didn't come 1.5-2 hours before the game -  and much longer when we played the top-tier teams.

[Skatastrophy]

This threadnaught is so full of tears.  I love it!

[SacWarrior]

I sacrificed studying for an IT exam to be there, but I for one can understand why plenty of students, during an exam-heavy week, might want to just watch us beat up on the state college of New Jersey on a Wednesday night from the comfort of their apartments/dorm rooms

I think I'm more disappointed in the alumni. That's right I said it

[Rockmic87]

They should just had the games at the Al Mcguire Center. That way it will hopefully be to capacity...

[Tugg Speedman]

There is a good direct comparision we can make, that holds most of the variable constant. We played Rutgers at home two years ago in a mid-week game while students were in session.  

Between 2010 and last night, there was a decline of nearly 2,000 fans, or 11.8%

2010 (last time Rutgers was in town):
RU Record:  9-10, 0-8 in conference
MU Record:  Unranked, 12-8 overall, 3-5 in conference (first home game after road losses to DePaul, SU)
Game date:  Tuesday, January 26
Attendance:  16,793

2012:
Record:  12-16, 4-11 in conference
MU Record:  Ranked #10, 22-5, 12-3 in conference (10-1 record in last 10 games)
Game Date:  Wednesday February 22
Attendance:  14,807


Its not our coach is (Buzz for both games)
Its not the opponent (Rutgers for both games)
Its not due to a weekday game (mid-week for both games)
It's not due to the quality of the opponent (Rutgers sucked both games)
It's not due to student break (classes in session both games)
It's not due to the weather (no storms yesterday--maybe in 2010, but that would reduce att. for 2010)
It's not due to disappointment in MU's season to date (we're much better than 2010)
Its not the economy (Unemployment has improved since 2010)

I guess that leaves the argument that Tuesday games draw better than Wednesday.

Either that, or Rutgers coach (and former MU assistant) Fred Hill is a much bigger draw than current Rutgers coach (and former MU assistant Mike Rice)

I don't know what the answer is to the decline in attendance--but I don't think it can't easily be dismissed with any of the usual explanations.

Here is the thread from two years ago whining how the January 26, 2010 Rutgers crowd sucked

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=17580.0

Do these two year old comments sound familar?

There's no way there were 14,000 people at the game.  Students probably numbered little less than a 1,000, there were plenty of empty seats in their area in the lower bowl.  I sit in the upper deck several rows from the top, and most of the seats in front of us that are usually filled were empty.


Student turnout was very poor for the game, especially being only one week into the semester.

Lower level was primarily full.  Student section was filled in the lower bowl but empty up top.  I believe the student section is where you get the difference between actual attendance and reported attendance.  Very disappointed with the student section last night.  First week back, I would have thought there would have been more.  Granted it wasn't horrendous, I just thought there would have been a lot more.  Maybe our record has something to do with it.  

student section was a joke.
the place haqd maybe 10k people. you people who think they had more are nuts.

[Silkk the Shaka]

Here is the thread from two year ago whining how the January 26, 2010 Rutgers crowd sucked

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=17580.0

Do these two year old comments sound familar?

There's no way there were 14,000 people at the game.  Students probably numbered little less than a 1,000, there were plenty of empty seats in their area in the lower bowl.  I sit in the upper deck several rows from the top, and most of the seats in front of us that are usually filled were empty.


Student turnout was very poor for the game, especially being only one week into the semester.

Lower level was primarily full.  Student section was filled in the lower bowl but empty up top.  I believe the student section is where you get the difference between actual attendance and reported attendance.  Very disappointed with the student section last night.  First week back, I would have thought there would have been more.  Granted it wasn't horrendous, I just thought there would have been a lot more.  Maybe our record has something to do with it.  

student section was a joke.
the place haqd maybe 10k people. you people who think they had more are nuts.

End of thread.

[Afroman]

Compared to weekday Bucks games, last night's crowd was like the opening ceremony of the Olympics.

[The Equalizer]

If I were to guess, I would say the importance of the game. Right now, we are a lock for the tourney and I'm sure many saw last night's game as a formality. In 2010, that wasn't the case. We were 11-8 (2-5) coming into the Rutgers game but had shown flashes of possibly being a tournament team if things started to break right for us. Of our 8 losses, 7 of them were by a combined 16 points, and 4 of those had come against teams ranked in the top-8 in the country. I remember that's when Andy Glockner of SI first jumped on the Marquette bandwagon, boldly (and accurately) predicting we would go from 2-5 to 11-7 in the Big East.

Bottom line, that Rutgers game was important, and started a stretch where Marquette won 9 of 10 games. Just think back to that 2010 team...Hayward, Butler, Acker, Cooby, DJO...that was the time when we were all thinking of how close they were to being good and just waiting for them to start finishing the close games.

I understand that on paper it seems to be the same, but the importance of those two games couldn't be more disparate when you take time to remember just what that Rutgers game meant at the time.

That's certainly an interesting theory.  I wouldn't have given the average fan that much credit. I probably would have guessed that the loss at DePaul might have dampened enthusiasm from the average fan, making them less likely to buy a ticket.  But let's run with the theory for now.

If you're correct, then the game against Seton Hall on Tuesday, February 17, 2009 would have been an equally unimportant game, and if your theory holds, show low attendance.

--We came into that game a lock for the tourney with a 21-4 overall record and 11-2 in conference--actually slightly better than the 22-5/11-3 record we had going into last night. 
--Game was midweek just like last night
--Seton Hall was slightly better than Rutgers--but still just 14-10/5-7 in conference at the time.

Did the unimportance of the game keep the crowd small?

Nope.  Attendance for that game was 18,709.  Almost 4,000 more than we had last night.

Maybe Seton Hall had a large number of alums in Milwaukee that artifcially inflated attendance that night.
 

[mu_hilltopper]

I'll offer another reason:  Bradley Center/Game Fatigue.

Even though this year we have fewer BC games, the experience of a Season Ticket Holder over the course of ~20 games can be draining.  (everyone get ready with their tiny violins.)

Figure it's 3 hours per game, we're now entering the 54-57th hour of getting in your car, finding a parking spot, marching to the BC, etc.  Not to mention leaving the BC, getting to your car, fighting to get on the freeway, then forking over $30 to the babysitter for the 19th time.

All for watching MU beat up on Rutgers. 

Just sayin.  My wife and I haven't missed a game in years, and went last night.  But the joy of going to the 1st game versus the 19th game is different.  That could easily explain why there were 5 empty seats in my row last night, usually filled.

[Tugg Speedman]

That's certainly an interesting theory.  I wouldn't have given the average fan that much credit. I probably would have guessed that the loss at DePaul might have dampened enthusiasm from the average fan, making them less likely to buy a ticket.  But let's run with the theory for now.

If you're correct, then the game against Seton Hall on Tuesday, February 17, 2009 would have been an equally unimportant game, and if your theory holds, show low attendance.

--We came into that game a lock for the tourney with a 21-4 overall record and 11-2 in conference--actually slightly better than the 22-5/11-3 record we had going into last night.  
--Game was midweek just like last night
--Seton Hall was slightly better than Rutgers--but still just 14-10/5-7 in conference at the time.

Did the unimportance of the game keep the crowd small?

Nope.  Attendance for that game was 18,709.  Almost 4,000 more than we had last night.

Maybe Seton Hall had a large number of alums in Milwaukee that artifcially inflated attendance that night.
 

... and here is the thread about the crowd for the February 17, 2009 Seton Hall game ..

Title: Last Night's Student Section = Weak Sauce
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=12690.0

Some excerpts:

You have a top 10-15 team, playing their 3rd to last home game of the year, against a quality opponent that has been playing well as of late...and you guys drop the ball.  Bottom level wasn't even completely full, we saw whole rows of the section behind the band open, and there were maybe 100 scattered in the first few rows of the upper deck.  You can't use midterms as an excuse as they are two weeks away.

Very disappointing.  I expect nothing short of chaos next Wednesday.  You need to go and redeem yourselves.

Clearly, we gotta stop the announcement about the "Best Student Section in the Country" before games, after showings like last night.  

I have to agree with this thread.  Those students that were there did a nice job....but where was everyone else?!  I don't get it.  Top 10 team, 3rd to last opportunity to watch an amazing group of seniors and there were barely any students in the upper deck....baffling.

honestly?....I'd cut the student section by 1500 seats.

Just pathetic, what exactly would it take to get the students all there?  as stated already, top ten team, three games left!  They are so predictable, of course next week its a big name top rated team so they will all show up.  Well last nights game was important as well.  How many students have night classes, just pathetic!


Marquette students ain't what they use to be. They worry way to much about grades now. They don't even realize that these are the best years of their lives and be able to get hammered and root for your hoops team on a Tuesday night.

Agreed.  The students are great....the ones that are there always bring it.  I don't buy the "we Marquette students have other things to do argument."  Really...like what?  Please don't tell me studying...it's a Tuesday night in February...it's 3 hours out of your day.  I understand not wanting to miss a class, but indifference or hanging out on your couch is not a good excuse.  This school hangs its hat on basketball, this team is top 10 and there's 3 frickin home games left for this group...get to the Bradley Center!  Ugh.

---------------

Einstein's definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Literally every weekday game back to 2008 has a thread whining about the crowd.  And each one is writiten as if it is a total surprise and giving us some new never heard information.

[RyanConroy]

Last night.  I don't really care about your wayback machine.

Student section was probably 65-70% full and the rest of the arena was probably 70-75%. So I guess some fans would have relished the opportunity to purchase tickets high in the corner of the upper deck rather than the ones closer to midcourt that were clearly readily available?

That argument doesn't make any sense. If the rest of the arena was sold out, I would have no counter to that logic, but it wasn't even close, so how would opening up more seats help anybody?

[mufansince72]

The old arena across the street holds a capacity of 10,783 for basketball.
Last night's "embarrassing" attendance was 14,807.

Need I say more?

p.s. If MU averaged an "emabrasing" 14,807 per game last year, it would have ranked merely 15th in the nation. Oh, the humanity.

No way there were more than 10,000 bodies there last night. 

[MUMac]

That's how everybody reports attendance numbers so your point, or lack thereof, is moot.

NFL is through the turnstyles.  But, in a comparison of one college to another, you are correct.

[AhoyaX]

Haha it's so awesome to be rooting for a team that literally has so little to complain about, we have to nit pick the school's marketing. (Which has delivered at least a top-11 national attendance ranking for three consecutive years.)

Times are good, fellas. Wish more people were at the games to appreciate it... #ZING!

[Golden Avalanche]

I'll offer another reason:  Bradley Center/Game Fatigue.

Even though this year we have fewer BC games, the experience of a Season Ticket Holder over the course of ~20 games can be draining.  (everyone get ready with their tiny violins.)

Figure it's 3 hours per game, we're now entering the 54-57th hour of getting in your car, finding a parking spot, marching to the BC, etc.  Not to mention leaving the BC, getting to your car, fighting to get on the freeway, then forking over $30 to the babysitter for the 19th time.

All for watching MU beat up on Rutgers. 

Just sayin.  My wife and I haven't missed a game in years, and went last night.  But the joy of going to the 1st game versus the 19th game is different.  That could easily explain why there were 5 empty seats in my row last night, usually filled.

Isn't that part of the discussion whether to renew a season ticket or not? If it gets to be a drain by February, why go through with that stress and/or fatigue? Just buy a five pack and few extra games that better fit the schedule.

It's easy for those who go every game to say it could be fatigue. It's easy for those who can't go to every game to say fatigue is bullcrap. I could see both sides but, in the end, we're talking about getting in and out of Milwaukee, not Los Angeles. It may be the easiest city I've ever encountered with regard to traveling "downtown".