The Trend In Attendance (2012/2013 edition)

[tower912]

I didn't and won't bother cross-referencing weather, but if I am reading the numbers correctly, MU's attendance is down for the year by about one decent snowfall on a night they were playing a cupcake.   

[bradley center bat]

AnotherMU84-
"The difference between last year and this year's attendance is this year we did not have that third 18,000+ game.  I thought it would be Syracuse but it "only" drew 16,049 ... maybe it because it was Monday and a 6 PM start.  Had that game drew 18,000+ we would have topped last year's attendance."


Great work on the numbers!

One thing that is missing is when Marquette does the premium pricing. This 2012-13 season it was as high as five games for the top prices. Wisconsin, G'town, Pitt, Syracuse & Notre Dame. While the numbers were a bit down, they could've made more money.

Last season, MU only did two premium games G'town on Senior Day Saturday and a February Saturday game versus Cincy.

[Tugg Speedman]

Creighton is #6--aren't they also a non-football school?

Let me restate ... MU is the only non-football school that has been in the top 20 of national attendance for 11 straight years.

[Tugg Speedman]

One thing that is missing is when Marquette does the premium pricing. This 2012-13 season it was as high as five games for the top prices. Wisconsin, G'town, Pitt, Syracuse & Notre Dame. While the numbers were a bit down, they could've made more money.

Last season, MU only did two premium games G'town on Senior Day Saturday and a February Saturday game versus Cincy.

+1

This thread is seven pages most of which is people asking what the "problem" is with sagging attendance.  A few pages ago I asked if the administration think their is a problem.  Bat is suggesting that do not because they are jacking up prices and more than offsetting the declines in attendance.  For all we know this was a record year in revenues from attendance and they are high-fiveing everyone in the administration office while we are kvetching about it.

[Dawson Rental]

+1

With the exception of the Ivies, I'd be hard-pressed to name a private college of any national significance that has not been an athletic powerhouse at one point or another in its history.

The University of Chicago still is very present in the Big 10 record book.

[Tugg Speedman]

The University of Chicago still is very present in the Big 10 record book.

Chicago was an athletic powerhouse from the 1890s until they left the B1G around WW2.  The first Heisman Trophy winner, Jay Berwanger in 1938, was from Chicago.  In the 1950s and 1960s their presence in Olympic sports (especially Track & Field) was close to what Stanford is today.

So the question still stands ... other than the ivies, name me a nationally recognized University with a good reputation that was never a power in athletics.  Note:  See Keefe's list above and the response to that list before you offer up a small liberal arts college that no one has heard of.

Remember the point, we associate athletic success with academic success.  to repeat what I wrote on the other page ...

The basketball program is the school's marketing tool.  It makes us known and (unfortunately) we in the US associate name recognition with academic success (I say unfortunately because football/basketball success does not mean academic success).  

Without that name recognition, MU is no different than Canisius, Fairfield, John Carroll, Regis, Rickhurst, Seattle University, University of Scranton or Springhill (all Jesuit Universities).  Can you tell me the city all these schools are in?  Ok, how about this list of Jesuit Universities ... Boston College, Creighton, Georgetown, Marquette, St. Louis and Xavier .. not mention DePaul, ND, PC, Seton Hall and Villanova.

Harvard (and most of the Ivies) stand as an exception to this rule.  Their name recognition stands alone.

[Goose]

I think there is definite problem with the trend of lower attendance. Plenty of factors play into it but having less fans every season is far from a good trend. I would think that reversing the trend at MU would be very high on priority list for MU. Honestly I know more and more people that would rather pay inflated ticket cost for 3-5 games rather than get season tickets. It really does come down to entertainment value and more than half the home games are not that entertaining.

[LloydMooresLegs]

Are you sure?  I recall having to pay for the tickets for my son and his buddy to go to the Georgetown game last year.

Sorry i missed this until now.  I think so-the email sure made it look that way-- 2 tickets.  Because we already had tickets to the game, I didn't follow up though. 

[Litehouse]

I think there is definite problem with the trend of lower attendance. Plenty of factors play into it but having less fans every season is far from a good trend. I would think that reversing the trend at MU would be very high on priority list for MU.

This is a national trend, not unique to MU.
NFL
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/07/08/after-peaking-in-2007-nfl-attendance-steadily-has-declined/
MLB
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=jp-passan_10_degrees_attendance_042511
College Football
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/21597895/in-era-of-technological-financial-change-has-college-football-peaked
NBA
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/why-t-nba-teams-fill-arenas-even-giving-193354981--nba.html
NASCAR
http://www.thatsracin.com/2012/07/07/91025/nascar-ticket-revenue-in-sharp.html

[warriorchick]

Sorry i missed this until now.  I think so-the email sure made it look that way-- 2 tickets.  Because we already had tickets to the game, I didn't follow up though. 

If they were indeed free, that is something new.  I remember one of my son's other buddies backing out at the last minute, and I was a little cheesed that we paid for a ticket that didn't get used.  It would make sense to charge at least a nominal amount to cut down on the no-shows.

It would be interesting to know what the commitment rate will be among kids who went to the Notre Dame game last weekend.  I can't imagine a kid attending and not thinking to himself, "I gotta go to school here!"

[bradley center bat]

+1

This thread is seven pages most of which is people asking what the "problem" is with sagging attendance.  A few pages ago I asked if the administration think their is a problem.  Bat is suggesting that do not because they are jacking up prices and more than offsetting the declines in attendance.  For all we know this was a record year in revenues from attendance and they are high-fiveing everyone in the administration office while we are kvetching about it.

I wish MU will make corner tickets starting at row Q thru X lower in price. Row C shouldn't be the same price as row X.

[muwarrior69]

What are we complaining about. Our lowest average attendance back in 2000 was still more than  what the RAC holds at Rutgers..... they die for those kind of numbers.

[Goose]

Warriorchick

My daughter will be freshman next year and she took advantage of the ticket for ND. Also, for Syracuse my daughter and family took advantage of the reduced price tickets in box. Thise we paid for and ND was free.

[Tugg Speedman]

What are we complaining about. Our lowest average attendance back in 2000 was still more than  what the RAC holds at Rutgers..... they die for those kind of numbers.

Actually since 2006

2000    not top 25           9,971
2001    not top 25           11,360
2002       12                   12,680
2003       11                   15,553
2004       12                   15,291
2005       21                   11,965
2006       18                   13,998
2007       20                   15,345
2008       14                   16,239
2009       10                   16,200
2010       10                   15,617
2011       11                   15,586      
2012       13                   15,138
2013       ??                    15,033

That said the difference between 2012 and 2015 is 1675 tickets spread over 16 games .... it is essentially a rounding error.  2007, 2010 and 2011 are 3,000 to 4,000 more than this year, again not a lot.  Only 2008/2009 stand out.

[Litehouse]

Don't those previous years include more games?  We had 16 this year, but wasn't it 18 when we still played the 2 exhibition games?  Attendance for those games was basically just season ticket holders, so it makes the higher averages a little more impressive.

[mu_hilltopper]

Good point, Litehouse. 

2004 and before, we usually had 2 exhibition games.  From 2005 to 2010, we had 1.  The last two years, we've had none.

Gotta figure, zero walk-up sales for exhibitions. 

And, for that matter, near zero for all cupcakes, for all years.  Our schedule has improved in the past 5 years, playing fewer 300+ rpi.   Just grabbed a year, 2008, we played 9 cupcakes.  This year, 6.

[NavinRJohnson]

MU has seen a fairly modest decrease in a period where the economy has been in the toilet, and television viewing has never been better. It seems they are probably just like anyone else across just about any sport. How to reverse that trend is a tough question. I wold suggest that no longer allowing season ticket holders to select their seats is probably not where I wold start however. 

[jsglow]

MU has seen a fairly modest decrease in a period where the economy has been in the toilet, and television viewing has never been better. It seems they are probably just like anyone else across just about any sport. How to reverse that trend is a tough question. I wold suggest that no longer allowing season ticket holders to select their seats is probably not where I wold start however. 

MU feels the same way but it is a tax situation regarding donations.  They didn't have a choice and are getting as close to 'select your exact seats' as the taxing authorities will allow.  Blame the government, not Marquette.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

My guess would be that MU has as many eyeballs as ever, but people aren't THAT motivated to go sit in the last rows of the upper deck when you can sit at home and watch a 60".

Home viewing has gotten a lot better (on average) over the past 10 years.

MU just needs to get a little more creative with marketing their non-premium seats. 5 game packs were a great start. Maybe see if they can get a partner company to sponsor the package and the give the consumer some sort of additional incentive?

Buy a $100 5 game plan in the 400 level and get $20 to Major Goolsby's? Maybe you get $10 in the MU spirit shop? (obv. one or the other).

Also, I like when they do young alumni stuff. I don't know if they still do it, but they used to offer young alumni discounts for kids who are only a year or 2 out of school. Maybe extend that to 5 years out? Could their be a "young family plan"? Or maybe even a "family section"? Lots of MU people bringing young ones.

Oh, and maybe there could be some sort of year-end bonus if you attend every game (extra seating points for the following year?).

Let's not only sell the seats, lets encourage people to go to the games!

[mu_hilltopper]

There's also no doubt that MU's television coverage has gotten FAR better. 

10 years ago, how many games were on TV?  Heck, were any home games on TV?

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

There's also no doubt that MU's television coverage has gotten FAR better. 

10 years ago, how many games were on TV?  Heck, were any home games on TV?

Yea, not many.

I'm pretty dedicated and I only miss 1 or 2 a year due to other commitments.

But, there are evenings when I come home from work, and sitting on the couch does sound a little nicer than driving down to the BC to see Florida A&I.

I still go... but I can see how people wouldn't... especially if you were sitting in the nose bleeds.

[Pakuni]

So the question still stands ... other than the ivies, name me a nationally recognized University with a good reputation that was never a power in athletics.  Note:  See Keefe's list above and the response to that list before you offer up a small liberal arts college that no one has heard of.

To name a few:

MIT
Emory
California Institute of Technology
Johns Hopkins (unless you consider being a power in one minor sport)
Washington University (St. Louis)

[Goose]

Guns


You are better man than I am. I stopped getting season tickets because the couch was better option for me many nights. I went to the games I wanted to and had a blast. The TV coverage has improved and made it easy to get lazy.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Guns


You are better man than I am. I stopped getting season tickets because the couch was better option for me many nights. I went to the games I wanted to and had a blast. The TV coverage has improved and made it easy to get lazy.

I don't have kids or a ton of responsibilities, so I outside of just laziness, I don't really have an excuse not to go.

Throw a newborn or multiple kids into the picture, and it will limit my attendance.

[GGGG]

So the question still stands ... other than the ivies, name me a nationally recognized University with a good reputation that was never a power in athletics.  Note:  See Keefe's list above and the response to that list before you offer up a small liberal arts college that no one has heard of.

Even though I hate their methodology, I will simply name the non-Ivy private schools from the USN&WR top 50 national rankings that have not had athletics success:

#6 - MIT
#10 - Cal Tech
#13 - Johns Hopkins (exception for lacrosse)
#14 - Washington University, St. Louis
#20 - Emory University
#23 - Carnegie Mellon
#28 - Tufts University
#32 - New York University
#33 - Brandeis University
#33 - University of Rochester
#37 - Case Western
#38 - Lehigh
#41 - RPI
#46 - Yeshiva

Remember, these are *national universities* and not liberal arts colleges.  So there are PLENTY of schools that have had academic success without top-level athletic success.  Here are the ones from the top 50 who have actually had athletic success...and I am being somewhat liberal in my definition of "success."

#4 - Chicago
#6 - Stanford
#8 - Duke
#12 - Northwestern
#17 - Rice
#17 - Notre Dame
#17 - Vanderbilt
#21 - Georgetown
#24 - USC
#27 - Wake Forest
#31 - BC
#44 - Miami (FL)

So that is 14 without success....12 with...  Even if you swap out Johns Hopkins that only makes it even.  So honestly I think your point is wrong.