BC Atmosphere

[MU82]

As to the lost revenue if MU played in an 11,000-seat arena ... how does Duke manage to maintain its program?

Not being snarky; legitimately asking.

There is a lot to be said for making the tickets more valuable because fewer are available, but maybe that's not realistic anymore.

As is the case with others, I am looking forward to the new arena to see what the atmosphere is like there. Gotta be better than most -- not all, but most -- games I've attended at the BC.

[Galway Eagle]

Winning will solve it.  It always has.

This surprisingly isn't completely true. According to the NCAA website:
2015 (13-19) 13,657
2014 (17-15) 15,327
2013 (26-9) 15,033
2012 (27-8) 15,138
2011 (22-15) 15,586
2010 (22-12) 15,617
2009 (25-10) 16,200
2008 (25-10) 16,239
2007 (24-10) 15,345
2006 (20-11) 13,998

Obviously we fell far last year but prior to that we had been winning more than we were with the big 3 and yet attendance was still falling. 

[bilsu]

I think reseating, especially every year, has had an effect on the season ticket holder base shrinking. Every year you have to consider whether you want to donate and thus are your tickets worth it.Before 1986 you had your seats and you did not have to go through hoops to keep them.

[Litehouse]

This surprisingly isn't completely true. According to the NCAA website:
2015 (13-19) 13,657
2014 (17-15) 15,327
2013 (26-9) 15,033
2012 (27-8) 15,138
2011 (22-15) 15,586
2010 (22-12) 15,617
2009 (25-10) 16,200
2008 (25-10) 16,239
2007 (24-10) 15,345
2006 (20-11) 13,998

Obviously we fell far last year but prior to that we had been winning more than we were with the big 3 and yet attendance was still falling.

By late Deane / early Crean era I assume he meant around 98-01.

[brewcity77]

I think reseating, especially every year, has had an effect on the season ticket holder base shrinking. Every year you have to consider whether you want to donate and thus are your tickets worth it.Before 1986 you had your seats and you did not have to go through hoops to keep them.

More than anything, I think it's television. With a full sports package, you can watch every game in high definition. Milwaukee in December, January, and February is pretty uncomfortable to go out in. At home, you can have your beer cheaper, have a great view of every play, watch any replay you want instantly, use the bathroom without fighting through lines, and do so while staying warm and not using gas.

It's on Marquette and the venue to make the event itself more appealing than the home atmosphere. Whether that's through giveaways, better in-house entertainment, cheaper concession prices, better quality of opponents, or what, I do not know, but I'll admit there have been a few games I've skipped as a season ticket holder last minute because watching the game at home was a viable option.

[Pakuni]

You went to games in the late Deane / early TC era right?  I did.  And the atmosphere sucked.  Tons of no shows.  Not much "passion for the program" that I recall.

Winning will solve it.  It always has.

Yes, exactly this.
The BC is far from ideal, and the new arena won't be ideal either. But the administration won't - and can't - sacrifice the revenue of the games that draw 15-16,000+ so that there can be better "atmosphere" for an early December game against Maine. Too much money lost by saying no to potentially thousands of paying customers, especially when the team is playing well.

Also, as has been alluded to, there's a lot that goes into creating a great atmosphere, and the venue is just a small part of it. Northwestern's Welsh-Ryan Arena has everything one would think a building needs to create great atmosphere: relatively small size, fans practically on top of the floor, a true, compact student section, etc. But the atmosphere is lousy because the team has been lousy for a long time and the students are apathetic to it (not to mention they're often outnumbered by fans of the opposing team).
If Marquette continues to be mediocre and the students continue to not show up, moving to a smaller arena isn't going to do much for the atmosphere.

[MU82]

More than anything, I think it's television. With a full sports package, you can watch every game in high definition. Milwaukee in December, January, and February is pretty uncomfortable to go out in. At home, you can have your beer cheaper, have a great view of every play, watch any replay you want instantly, use the bathroom without fighting through lines, and do so while staying warm and not using gas.

It's on Marquette and the venue to make the event itself more appealing than the home atmosphere. Whether that's through giveaways, better in-house entertainment, cheaper concession prices, better quality of opponents, or what, I do not know, but I'll admit there have been a few games I've skipped as a season ticket holder last minute because watching the game at home was a viable option.

Maybe all this is true, but Bill Wirtz used this as an excuse to keep the Blackhawks home games off local TV forever.

Ever since the old man croaked and Rocky took over, home games have been on TV and attendance has soared. The Blackhawks are the toughest ticket in Chicago. Why? Because the product is great. Winning takes care of everything.

There are a lot of teams, pro and college, in a lot of sports in a lot of markets that regularly sell out games (or come close to it) even though those games could be watched comfortably at home.

[mu_hilltopper]

12,700 is for concerts with seating on the floor.  Its 10,783 for basketball.

Damn you, Google.

[Galway Eagle]

By late Deane / early Crean era I assume he meant around 98-01.

I was just referring to this theory that the more we win the more people will show up. I think we top out at about 15,000 during the good years and anything greater is not tied directly to winning.

[warriorchick]

Damn you, Google.

You are obviously too young to remember that for years and years, the attendance figure for Marquette games was exactly 10,783.

[mu_hilltopper]

You went to games in the late Deane / early TC era right?  I did.  And the atmosphere sucked.  Tons of no shows.  Not much "passion for the program" that I recall.

Winning will solve it.  It always has.

Yep .. sucked.  When my wife and I started dating in 1997, she took me to games.  We bought some season tickets off some students for $50 and could waltz in at game-time and sit in prime seats in 211 .. no problem.  Turrible.

Although .. the analysis above about "winning" solving things .. I honestly believe we're past that. It'd help, sure .. IMHO it'd just stem the tide.

[Pakuni]

More than anything, I think it's television. With a full sports package, you can watch every game in high definition. Milwaukee in December, January, and February is pretty uncomfortable to go out in. At home, you can have your beer cheaper, have a great view of every play, watch any replay you want instantly, use the bathroom without fighting through lines, and do so while staying warm and not using gas.

And yet Syracuse draws nearly 24,000 a game.
People gladly will leave their couches and fork over their money to you if you give them a good enough reason.

And, let's face it, there's plenty here outside of MU's control. It's not MU's choice or fault that they're no longer hosting games against Louisville, Syracuse, Notre Dame and UConn. And yet the lack of those teams on the schedule certainly hurts atmosphere and attendance. Xavier and Butler are solid, respectable programs, but it'll be a long time (or never) before they muster the kind of excitement that a game against ND or Louisville will.

[GGGG]

I was just referring to this theory that the more we win the more people will show up. I think we top out at about 15,000 during the good years and anything greater is not tied directly to winning.

I was speaking mostly about the atmosphere and "passion for the program."  But even attendance will improve over the past couple of years.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

I was just referring to this theory that the more we win the more people will show up. I think we top out at about 15,000 during the good years and anything greater is not tied directly to winning.

Your data proves that the Big East + Winning does drive better attendance.  05-06 was our first year in the conference and many thought we were going to get slaughtered in the BE -- up until Novak and the big 3 took it to UCONN mid-season.  Enthusiasm rose steadily after that.

[chapman]

As to the lost revenue if MU played in an 11,000-seat arena ... how does Duke manage to maintain its program?

Not being snarky; legitimately asking.

In terms of basketball operations: they don't pay to lease Cameron, and ticket prices are outrageous and it still sells out (though fewer than 500 tickets per game are available to general public).


Also, they're loaded.  For perspective:

Marquette endowment: $532 Million
Duke endowment: $7.0 Billion, plus a $3.4 Billion independent endowment

[Pakuni]

In terms of basketball operations: they don't pay to lease Cameron, and ticket prices are outrageous and it still sells out (though fewer than 500 tickets per game are available to general public).


Also, they're loaded.  For perspective:

Marquette endowment: $532 Million
Duke endowment: $7.0 Billion, plus a $3.4 Billion independent endowment

All this plus Nike money.

[ChicosBailBonds]

As to the lost revenue if MU played in an 11,000-seat arena ... how does Duke manage to maintain its program?

Not being snarky; legitimately asking.

There is a lot to be said for making the tickets more valuable because fewer are available, but maybe that's not realistic anymore.

As is the case with others, I am looking forward to the new arena to see what the atmosphere is like there. Gotta be better than most -- not all, but most -- games I've attended at the BC.

Duke's entire athletic program is endowed.  EVERY last scholarship last I had heard.  For MU, if I recall we had less than 10 scholarships totally endowed.....just two different worlds, two different schools and the alumni giving that goes with it.

[ChicosBailBonds]

This surprisingly isn't completely true. According to the NCAA website:
2015 (13-19) 13,657
2014 (17-15) 15,327
2013 (26-9) 15,033
2012 (27-8) 15,138
2011 (22-15) 15,586
2010 (22-12) 15,617
2009 (25-10) 16,200
2008 (25-10) 16,239
2007 (24-10) 15,345
2006 (20-11) 13,998

Obviously we fell far last year but prior to that we had been winning more than we were with the big 3 and yet attendance was still falling.

Some folks weren't buying into squirmy.

Oh, and the economy tanked, etc.

[GGGG]

Good point about the economy.

And I think you are seeing a lot of student apathy at a lot of places.  There are many arenas on weekdays in January and February that aren't exactly electric.

[Galway Eagle]

Some folks weren't buying into squirmy.

Oh, and the economy tanked, etc.

Yeah I know you like to think there was this massive protest against Buzz but winning cures all ails for regular people. And it was the second most successful stretch of MU basketball ever. 

Economy is a good point. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

Yeah I know you like to think there was this massive protest against Buzz but winning cures all ails for regular people. And it was the second most successful stretch of MU basketball ever. 

Economy is a good point.

Where did "some people" turn into "massive protest"?  I never said it, don't pretend I did or insert words I didn't say.  There are SOME people on this very board that said they were shying away more from the team...SOME...not Massive...SOME.

As for the second most successful stretch part, much of that was in the NCAA tournament, which is after a regular season and has no impact on the attendance that year.  Furthermore, turnover in college basketball is big each year with players graduating and leaving early.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

As for the second most successful stretch part, much of that was in the NCAA tournament, which is after a regular season and has no impact on the attendance that year. 

This was big during that period.  It was always low expectations and big finish in that period.  No team in my MU history carried the expectations that the big 3 did. We thought top ten in those latter years was no big stretch from an achievabilify standpoint. .

[ChicosBailBonds]

This was big during that period.  It was always low expectations and big finish in that period.  No team in my MU history carried the expectations that the big 3 did. We thought top ten in those latter years was no big stretch from an achievabilify standpoint. .

I agree, which is why I point out the attendance part.  One of those Buzz years, we were one of the last teams to make the NCAA tournament, disappointed much of the regular season which is when fans actually go to our games.  Whereas with the Big 3, we were playing big time schools, playing them well, and attendance came because attendance largely reacts to what is going on now.

Watch, the Bucks attendance will get a bump in the coming weeks based on last night.  That's just sports fandom.

[martyconlonontherun]

New arena won't be any better.  As long as the place is capable of hosting Monster Jam or the Shrine Circus, the basketball atmosphere will suffer.

Ummm. The new arena will be smaller and designed for basketball, which the bc is not. That alone will make the new arena a lot better with better angle and double the fans on the lower level. Add in better amenities and lighting design and we will be playing in an awesome arena. Especially if wojo gets us going where we draw 15k plus again.

[Galway Eagle]

Where did "some people" turn into "massive protest"?  I never said it, don't pretend I did or insert words I didn't say.  There are SOME people on this very board that said they were shying away more from the team...SOME...not Massive...SOME.

As for the second most successful stretch part, much of that was in the NCAA tournament, which is after a regular season and has no impact on the attendance that year.  Furthermore, turnover in college basketball is big each year with players graduating and leaving early.

So your answer to almost 1,000 person drop in attendance is that some people don't like squirmy? You just had to put some pointless shot at Buzz in there?

You don't think NCAA tournament impacts attendance for the following year though?

Well what do you say is the second most successful stretch? Buzz in four years had 122 wins in five years Tom Crean from 2002 to 06 had 111 wins. Tom Crean had 107 wins in the five years prior to Buzz.  Outside of that there's really not any competition for a five year stretch. Even if you included the last year where he was terrible he still has a higher win total than any 6 year stretch of Tom Crean. He was better regular season and tournament than any other coach since Al which means it was the second most successful stretch.