The Trend In Attendance (2012/2013 edition)

[ChicosBailBonds]

But our attendance is holding up.  In 2008 we were 14th nationally.  Last year we were 11th nationally.  What decline?

I think he's talking about raw number decline...actual attendance, not place in the rankings.  His point, if I am reading it right, is that top 25 teams are mostly seeing a surge in attendance while only a few are seeing a decline in actual attendance.  Maybe I am not understanding his point but that's the way I see it.

[mu_hilltopper]

How much do you think the hike in ticket prices as cut into upper bowl attendance?

This is a good point.  I think the lower bowl has been sold out for 8+ years, or close to it ... which eliminates the lower bowl as having an impact on fluctuating attendance.

I'll bet a donut MU hasn't lost more than 50 net season tickets in any year in the past decade .. and have gained +50-500 in some years.

It's all about the upper deck .. 5 pack sales, single game sales, groups, walkups.  Those groups are impacted by price.   Used to be $9 for the worst ticket .. that's true now too, but it's for the cupcakes (that have no walkup) and $15 for most games, $20 for premium games.  That's a lot for a crappy upper endzone ticket.

[Tugg Speedman]

I think he's talking about raw number decline...actual attendance, not place in the rankings.  His point, if I am reading it right, is that top 25 teams are mostly seeing a surge in attendance while only a few are seeing a decline in actual attendance.  Maybe I am not understanding his point but that's the way I see it.

As was pointed out above, the entire NCAA and the NCAA tourney has seen bigger declines (raw attendance) than MU.  The top 25 is a biased sample as it looks at the attendance of teams that are hot now, most of which were not four years ago which is why they are all up.  See my post above that includes teams not in the 25 this season like ND, UCLA and ASU, they have seen horrific declines in attendance.

The problem with decline attendance is not MU specific ... it is college-wide.  MU decline has been less than average.

[bradley center bat]

Maybe MU should do in what the Bucks do for upper deck seats. The prices are different for rows in the sections, in MU has the same price for just the section. If your in the corner row R should cost less than row C.


http://www.nba.com/bucks/tickets/seating-maps

[WarriorInNYC]

As was pointed out above, the entire NCAA and the NCAA tourney has seen bigger declines (raw attendance) than MU.  The top 25 is a biased sample as it looks at the attendance of teams that are hot now, most of which were not four years ago which is why they are all up.  See my post above that includes teams not in the 25 this season like ND, UCLA and ASU, they have seen horrific declines in attendance.

The problem with decline attendance is not MU specific ... it is college-wide.  MU decline has been less than average.

To go with Another's point bolded here, I decided to look at the top 8 teams from Equalizer's top-25 list in increasing attendance and compare their 2009 year vs this year.  The below has been taken from the school's bball wiki pages.

1. Kansas State
In 2009, Kansas State finished 22-12 and missed the NCAA tournament.  In 2008, they had made the tournament for the first time since 1996.  Since this 2009 year, they have made the tournament every year, earning 2, 5, and 8 seeds the last 3 years.  I think it would be a somewhat safe assumption that interest in KState Bball has dramatically increased since 2009.

2. Indiana
Many of us are more familiar with this one.  In 2009, Indiana finished 6-25, including 1-17 in Big 10 play.  They returned to the NCAA tournament last year making the Sweet 16 and entered this year preseason #1.

3. Louisville
Louisville has not changed much in terms of quality basketball.  They earned the #1 overall NCAA tournament seed in 2009 and have not missed the tournament yet.  This year they have been ranked as high as #1.  As many have pointed out, in 2010, Louisville began playing in the brand new Yum! Center.

4. Butler
Butler made the NCAA tournament in 2009 after finishing 26-6 losing in the first round that year to LSU.  Since then, they have made the NCAA tournament championship game twice.  Again, I think it is safe to say that interest in Butler basketball has greatly increased with the two runner-up finishes.

5. Colorado State
Not much information is contained on CSU's wiki page, but it mentions that in 2012 they made the NCAA tournament for the first time in more than 2 decades.  This year again they are ranked.  Again, I believe it is safe to say that overall interest in their program has dramatically increased since 2009.

6. VCU
In 2009, the Rams made the NCAA tournament as an 11 seed, losing in the first round.  Since then, they were CBI champs in 2010, made the Final 4 in 2011, and the Sweet 16 in 2012.  They again have found themselves in the top 25 this year.

7. Michigan
In 2009, Michigan made the NCAA tournament after finishing 21-14.  They missed the tourney in 2010, but made appearances in 2011 and 2012.  This year they have had perhaps the most regular season success and hype as they have consistently been ranked in the top 10 and have been #1 several times.

8. New Mexico
In 2009, New Mexico finished 22-12 and did not make the NCAA tournament.  They had an appearance in 2010 (their first since 2005) and again in 2012.  This year they have been consistently ranked in the top 25.  Again, I think its a fair assumption that interest in their program has increased dramatically since 2009.

Now I have to get back to work

[The Equalizer]

I think he's talking about raw number decline...actual attendance, not place in the rankings.  His point, if I am reading it right, is that top 25 teams are mostly seeing a surge in attendance while only a few are seeing a decline in actual attendance.  Maybe I am not understanding his point but that's the way I see it.

That's exactly the point.

What should be common sense:
--Teams that decline in performance decline in attendance
--Teams that improve in preformance improve in attendance.
--Teams that have held their own in performance--with very few exceptions--hold their own in attendance.

I don't know how in any universe anyone could complain that we're not holding our own. 

What Another84 is doing is taking a report that shows teams that were ahead of us in 2008 but slipped behind us over the last five years--teams like Memphis and Tennessee and Maryland-- choosing to ignoring their respective scandals and/or coaching transitions (which cause a decline in both performance and attendance), and projecting those isolated issues into a "general" problem for all college baseketball.

With very few exceptions (namely Marquette, Georgetown and Notre Dame), the teams that have been consistently good from 2009 to now are still reporting about the same average attendance as they were five years ago.  Some are up a few hundered a game, some are down a few hundered.  Very very few of them are more than 1,000 behind the pace they were on in 2009.   We're one of those few.

What should be obvious by now is that the excuses provided for last year's attendance decline--no Notre Dame, no Wisconsin, not enough weekend games, not enough ranked teams--have all been solved this year. 

And yet, we didn't see attendance recover to 2011 or 2010 or 2009 levels.   We're still down where we were at in 2012.

[Pakuni]

So in your view, we are suffering the same trend as, say, DePaul, Villanova or Uconn?  DePaul's years of accumulated futility, Villanova's decline from Final Four to non-tournament team and UConn's NCAA sanctions and coaching change aren't to blame--we're all just victims of the same big general decline in attendance?

That's quite the red herring. As if only teams with NCAA sanctions and severely flagging fortunes have suffered attendance declines.
Among the others experiencing attendance declines:
Ohio State, Georgetown, Wisconsin, North Carolina, West Virginia, Florida, Memphis, Arizona, Minnesota, Dayton and Iowa State.
Shall I name more?

Not really that surprising. Buzz's first year was 2009. But could you be cherry-picking by using 2008 (over two coaching regimes) to 2011 (ignoring available data from 2012 and 2013?)

Wait ...are you linking the attendance decline to Buzz? A coach 10 times more popular among the fan base than anyone since at least Hank Raymonds?

I chose 2008 because that was the year cited in the two reports I linked, and the apparent high point before the ongoing downward trend. It seems to me that when discussing a downward trend - whether it be in housing dales, stock prices or attendance, the logical place to start is when the trend began, rather than picking a year at random after it already was under way. At least that's how the people who prepared the reports looked at it.

Using your choice of 2008 as a start, 13 of 25 increased, one was flat, and in one the decline was neglible. Of the 10 with more significant declines, two were explainable because of coaching transitions (Oregon & Oklahoma State), and six declined at less than half the rate of MU.  Even using 2008, e're falling faster than most comparable teams.

The problem with using only the current top 25 and their current attendance is that you're getting mostly programs that are at a high point (Miami, Michigan, Indiana, New Mexico, Butler, Gonzaga, Colorado State, VCU) and/or elite programs with large student and fan bases/ticket demands that are largely immune to fluctuations (Duke, Kansas, Syracuse, Louisville).
Marquette - like Georgetown or Notre Dame - fall into neither category. MU is doing well, but not as well as the recent past. MU lacks the large alumni base and student body of most of the state schools in the top 25, and therefore is far more reliant on drawing the casual fan than, say, Kansas or Indiana or Louisville. Hence, MU - like Georgetown and ND - is more susceptible to the trend.
Also, even teams that are consistently in the top 25 - Florida, Memphis, Ohio State - are seeing declines.

two were explainable because of coaching transitions (Oregon & Oklahoma State),

There's a provable link between coaching transitions and attendance decline?
Citation needed.

You may want to check the number of ranked opponents we had last year. And in 2008 for that matter.

Three home games vs home opponents in 2008. Seven against ranked opponents in 2009.

We always seem to have conflict with a bowl game or Packers game or NFL playoffs. Hardly unique.

Really? When was the last time Marquette played a Big East opponent at the exact same time UW was in the Rose Bowl or a Packers game?

--We ALWAYS go into the season with lowered expectations.  

Like in 2007-08 when MU was ranked #11 in the preseason poll? And the next year, when they were 16th?


Well we can't fix the problem if people are going to argue the problem doesn't exist. Here's a start as to why attendance is down:

Continuing to promote our opponents as the draw rather than Marquette, training fans to care more for "big" games and avoid the others.

Examples?

Continuing to promote the Big East aheaad of Marquette.

Examples?

Also continuing to lower expectations and harp about how bad we are doen't help, either.

Who does this?
And, for the love of God, don't cite Buzz's Lou Holtz routine. If you think that's keeping fans away no point continuing this discussion.

[tower912]

That's exactly the point.

What should be common sense:
--Teams that decline in performance decline in attendance
--Teams that improve in preformance improve in attendance.
--Teams that have held their own in performance--with very few exceptions--hold their own in attendance.

I don't know how in any universe anyone could complain that we're not holding our own.  

What Another84 is doing is taking a report that shows teams that were ahead of us in 2008 but slipped behind us over the last five years--teams like Memphis and Tennessee and Maryland-- choosing to ignoring their respective scandals and/or coaching transitions (which cause a decline in both performance and attendance), and projecting those isolated issues into a "general" problem for all college baseketball.

With very few exceptions (namely Marquette, Georgetown and Notre Dame), the teams that have been consistently good from 2009 to now are still reporting about the same average attendance as they were five years ago.  Some are up a few hundered a game, some are down a few hundered.  Very very few of them are more than 1,000 behind the pace they were on in 2009.   We're one of those few.

What should be obvious by now is that the excuses provided for last year's attendance decline--no Notre Dame, no Wisconsin, not enough weekend games, not enough ranked teams--have all been solved this year.  

And yet, we didn't see attendance recover to 2011 or 2010 or 2009 levels.   We're still down where we were at in 2012.

You have made this argument ad infinitum.   Now make a point.  Do you wish to blame someone for it?    Do you have a cause for it?   Is it something MU is doing wrong?    Is it Buzz?   

[muwarrior69]

This is a good point.  I think the lower bowl has been sold out for 8+ years, or close to it ... which eliminates the lower bowl as having an impact on fluctuating attendance.

I'll bet a donut MU hasn't lost more than 50 net season tickets in any year in the past decade .. and have gained +50-500 in some years.

It's all about the upper deck .. 5 pack sales, single game sales, groups, walkups.  Those groups are impacted by price.   Used to be $9 for the worst ticket .. that's true now too, but it's for the cupcakes (that have no walkup) and $15 for most games, $20 for premium games.  That's a lot for a crappy upper endzone ticket.

Wow! I had to pay $40 at the RAC to see MU play Rutgers and they were the nose bleed seats.

[Tugg Speedman]

That's exactly the point.

What should be common sense:
--Teams that decline in performance decline in attendance
--Teams that improve in preformance improve in attendance.
--Teams that have held their own in performance--with very few exceptions--hold their own in attendance.

I don't know how in any universe anyone could complain that we're not holding our own.  

What Another84 is doing is taking a report that shows teams that were ahead of us in 2008 but slipped behind us over the last five years--teams like Memphis and Tennessee and Maryland-- choosing to ignoring their respective scandals and/or coaching transitions (which cause a decline in both performance and attendance), and projecting those isolated issues into a "general" problem for all college baseketball.

With very few exceptions (namely Marquette, Georgetown and Notre Dame), the teams that have been consistently good from 2009 to now are still reporting about the same average attendance as they were five years ago.  Some are up a few hundered a game, some are down a few hundered.  Very very few of them are more than 1,000 behind the pace they were on in 2009.   We're one of those few.

What should be obvious by now is that the excuses provided for last year's attendance decline--no Notre Dame, no Wisconsin, not enough weekend games, not enough ranked teams--have all been solved this year.  

And yet, we didn't see attendance recover to 2011 or 2010 or 2009 levels.   We're still down where we were at in 2012.

Regarding the highlighted part.  2009 was our all-time high in attendance.  How many other teams are being compared to their all-time high in 2009?

And sticking with the idea that a team record drives attendance ... in 2009 we were ranked top 10 most of the season.  We started off BE play 9-0.  It was not a stretch to think that was a FF caliber team.  It was the three amigos senior year.  Then James broke his foot during the Uconn game, near the end of the season, and that was the end of the FF dream.

So yes, the 2012 and 2013 teams, while ranked (and the 2012 team was even a top 10 ranked team) are considered inferior in expectations to the 2009 team and attendance is down from 2009.

[jsglow]

Agree with topper's thought that the lower bowl has nothing to do with attendance.  Those seats are a given and the demand is inelastic so charging fully is absolutely appropriate.  At the other end of the spectrum, I fully support lowering ticket prices in the upper corners and endzone so the family of four can decide that day to be a walk-up. "Hey, wanna go to the Marquette game?"  Certainly super premium games can be excluded (Wisconsin, for example) but Seton Hall on a Saturday?  Even Pitt at 17,300 might have meant that the price point was still too high.  

Look, MU had absolutely outstanding success with the $99 end zone season ticket promotion 4 years back.  I don't have stats but I've heard this from very reliable sources.  At $99 ($6.19 per ticket over 16 games), eating some tickets becomes perfectly acceptable.  They had the same problem with student sales last year when they raised the price to $125.  Guess what?  Student season ticket sales declined.  Thank goodness they saw the error of their way and returned to $99 this year.  Think of the BC like an airplane leaving the gate with empty seats.

[Tugg Speedman]

Agree with topper's thought that the lower bowl has nothing to do with attendance.  Those seats are a given and the demand is inelastic so charging fully is absolutely appropriate.  At the other end of the spectrum, I fully support lowering ticket prices in the upper corners and endzone so the family of four can decide that day to be a walk-up. "Hey, wanna go to the Marquette game?"  Certainly super premium games can be excluded (Wisconsin, for example) but Seton Hall on a Saturday?  Even Pitt at 17,300 might have meant that the price point was still too high.  

Look, MU had absolutely outstanding success with the $99 end zone season ticket promotion 4 years back.  I don't have stats but I've heard this from very reliable sources.  At $99 ($6.19 per ticket over 16 games), eating some tickets becomes perfectly acceptable.  They had the same problem with student sales last year when they raised the price to $125.  Guess what?  Student season ticket sales declined.  Thank goodness they saw the error of their way and returned to $99 this year.  Think of the BC like an airplane leaving the gate with empty seats.

Does the MU administration see it this way too?

[The Equalizer]

Regarding the highlighted part.  2009 was our all-time high in attendance.  How many other teams are being compared to their all-time high in 2009?

You are incorrect.  2008 was our all time high.  2009 was down slightly.  Admittedly not by much, but still down. 

And sticking with the idea that a team record drives attendance ... in 2009 we were ranked top 10 most of the season.  We started off BE play 9-0.  It was not a stretch to think that was a FF caliber team.  It was the three amigos senior year.  Then James broke his foot during the Uconn game, near the end of the season, and that was the end of the FF dream.

So yes, the 2012 and 2013 teams, while ranked (and the 2012 team was even a top 10 ranked team) are considered inferior in expectations to the 2009 team and attendance is down from 2009.

I could argue that 2009 should have shown an improvment over 2008, given that it was "not a stretch to think that was a FF caliber team."   

But instead, lets not use 2009 as the baseline.  Let's run with your argument on expectations and use 2010.

Recall what expectations were for 2010. The amigos had graduated.  The "cupboard was empty" as many around here like to say. Buzz's pre-season commentary said we should be picked 16th, and most everyone else had us no better than 12th.  We had more newcomers (7) than returning players (5).  Very few held out hope for as much as an NCAA bid.  If there was ever a year to have low expectations, 2010 was it. 

And with those rock-bottom pre-season expectations--and no home game with Wisconsin to boost us--we fell to 15,617.

Now, if your argument was correct, attendance should have recovered as expectations improved for the following year (boosted by Wisconsin on the home slate).

What actually happened?

Attendance further fell to 15,586.

[NersEllenson]

You are incorrect.  2008 was our all time high.  2009 was down slightly.  Admittedly not by much, but still down.  

I could argue that 2009 should have shown an improvment over 2008, given that it was "not a stretch to think that was a FF caliber team."  

But instead, lets not use 2009 as the baseline.  Let's run with your argument on expectations and use 2010.

Recall what expectations were for 2010. The amigos had graduated.  The "cupboard was empty" as many around here like to say. Buzz's pre-season commentary said we should be picked 16th, and most everyone else had us no better than 12th.  We had more newcomers (7) than returning players (5).  Very few held out hope for as much as an NCAA bid.  If there was ever a year to have low expectations, 2010 was it.  

And with those rock-bottom pre-season expectations--and no home game with Wisconsin to boost us--we fell to 15,617.

Now, if your argument was correct, attendance should have recovered as expectations improved for the following year (boosted by Wisconsin on the home slate).

What actually happened?

Attendance further fell to 15,586.

I'll take a shot at this....because Buzz isn't nearly as good of promoter of the program as was Tom Crean.  End of story.  Nonetheless, I'd still take slightly reduced attendance over occasional trips to the NIT and consistent 1st round NCAA losses.

[jmayer1]

I don't know how in any universe anyone could complain that we're not holding our own. 

Then why are you making the argument?

[Tugg Speedman]

You are incorrect.  2008 was our all time high.  2009 was down slightly.  Admittedly not by much, but still down.  

I could argue that 2009 should have shown an improvment over 2008, given that it was "not a stretch to think that was a FF caliber team."  

But instead, lets not use 2009 as the baseline.  Let's run with your argument on expectations and use 2010.

Recall what expectations were for 2010. The amigos had graduated.  The "cupboard was empty" as many around here like to say. Buzz's pre-season commentary said we should be picked 16th, and most everyone else had us no better than 12th.  We had more newcomers (7) than returning players (5).  Very few held out hope for as much as an NCAA bid.  If there was ever a year to have low expectations, 2010 was it.  

And with those rock-bottom pre-season expectations--and no home game with Wisconsin to boost us--we fell to 15,617.

Now, if your argument was correct, attendance should have recovered as expectations improved for the following year (boosted by Wisconsin on the home slate).

What actually happened?

Attendance further fell to 15,586.

Correct, it fell by 31 people per game!  Can we just say it is unchanged?

How about this ... 15,500 to 16,200 is MU's ceiling, and variation within this range can be explained by a few factors (are we top 10, do we play UW, number of weekend games, number of ranked opponents, do we play ND, do we play a decent DePaul team at home).  If your asking why we are not drawing more than 16,239/game, maybe we will need to win the National Championship to move above the 2008 (16,239) 2009 (16,200) peak?

[Tugg Speedman]

I'll take a shot at this....because Buzz isn't nearly as good of promoter of the program as was Tom Crean.  End of story.  Nonetheless, I'd still take slightly reduced attendance over occasional trips to the NIT and consistent 1st round NCAA losses.

Ners, human nature is to assign one simple reason for every problem.  Reality rarely works that way.

When PT Barnum was the head coach (Crean) we went to the final four, then this happened ...

Year      National            Average
2003       11                   15,553 (final four year)
2004       12                   15,291
2005       21                   11,965

Did Crean forget how to carnival bark in 2004 and 2005?  Or was it back to back NIT teams and stellar recruits like James Matthews and Brandon Bell (was that the Niv Berkowtiz era too?) that turned people off from going to games?

Regarding our current attendance slide.

2009 #1 all-time in MU attendance #14 nationally (Crean)
2009 #2 all-time in MU attendance #10 nationally (Buzz)
2010 #3 all-time in MU attendance #10 nationally (Buzz)
2011 #4 all-time in MU attendance #11 nationally (Buzz)
2012 #7 all-time in MU attendance #13 nationally (Buzz)

Is this really a problem?

[bradley center bat]

I don't think there is a problem, many would like it to get better.

I think it starts with cutting the cost of ticket prices for seats in the upper deck corner row Q thru X. This was the first year they did that with the mini-plan.

[jsglow]

Does the MU administration see it this way too?

Not sure another.  But they clearly reversed themselves with respect to the student season tickets this year.  Perhaps we'll see some moderation is the non-student ticket prices too.

[jsglow]

This is a good point.  I think the lower bowl has been sold out for 8+ years, or close to it ... which eliminates the lower bowl as having an impact on fluctuating attendance.

I'll bet a donut MU hasn't lost more than 50 net season tickets in any year in the past decade .. and have gained +50-500 in some years.

It's all about the upper deck .. 5 pack sales, single game sales, groups, walkups.  Those groups are impacted by price.   Used to be $9 for the worst ticket .. that's true now too, but it's for the cupcakes (that have no walkup) and $15 for most games, $20 for premium games.  That's a lot for a crappy upper endzone ticket.

Last night's crowd was outstanding for its enthusiasm and noise but well below my expecation for actual tickets sold.  16,049 announced.  Sure MU put on a late $10 ticket promotion, but it was too little, too late.  I can't wait for Saturday but I am now forced (unhappily) to report that we're going to finish out the year below 15,000 per game for the first time since 2006.

Larry, in these challenging times you simply must lower the price, especially in the upper bowl.  An empty seat generates exactly zero in revenue.

[Coleman]

Uppers in the corner and behind the basket are just too expensive. Make them $9 for all games and you will sell out against the good opponents.

I think in the new conference (and even next year in what's left of the Big East) something is gonna have to give. We will have fewer elite opponents. Ticket prices can't stay where they are, or we will be seeing attendance in the 12,000ish range for some conference games, which is unacceptable IMO.

[MUfan12]

I can't wait for Saturday but I am now forced (unhappily) to report that we're going to finish out the year below 15,000 per game for the first time since 2006.

Still a shot... Need 18,563 in the house to get to 240,000 (15k/game). I think there's a legitimate shot, with how hot of a ticket it is.

Through the Syracuse game-
ATTENDANCE SUMMARY         GAMES   TOTALS   AVG/GAME
HOME....................                15       221437      14762

[bradley center bat]

The premium pricing for the Syracuse game is a joke. With the game falling on a Monday night at 6pm. Upper seats at $30 & $20. Rows Q-Z need to be lowered in price.

[warriorchick]

If they aren't already, they should be giving those unsold seats (especially for the non-con cupcake games) to grade school and high school groups for next to nothing.  Loyalty to a team can start really young, and today's Boy Scout field trip participant could become tomorrow's freshman - or season-ticket holder.

[bradley center bat]

I think everyone should send e-mails to the ticket office. Athletics@marquette.edu

Tell them to lower the tickets in the upper corners. Starting in October when single game tickets go on sale. Not on twitter, four days before the game.