BC Atmosphere

[warriorchick]

If anyone hasn't looked at how the Barclays Center and Bankers Life Fieldhouse handle an ice rink, you should.  I assume the new arena will be similar to that.

Does the new place even need ice?  They can put Disney on Ice and all that other crap in the Arena.

[bradley center bat]

Other than this year, Disney on Ice has been at UWM Panther Arena.

[GGGG]

The new place should be built in case it needs ice, but I would also put all that crap by the Arena.

And this is why putting both places under the same governing body made a whole bunch of sense. 

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

If anyone hasn't looked at how the Barclays Center and Bankers Life Fieldhouse handle an ice rink, you should.  I assume the new arena will be similar to that.

Was there for the legends classic. Gorgeous arena

[keefe]

Does the new place even need ice?  They can put Disney on Ice and all that other crap in the Arena.

Watch it! That's a slippery slope

[mu-rara]

Another great band box home court was Depaul's Alumni Hall. A group of us went there for a Marquette game and it was a tremendous atmosphere. Problem was that they got good and needed more than 6,000 seats so they moved to the Rosemont which was an absolutely terrible place to play basketball.

maybe the worst

[Benny B]

So what makes a basketball arena (assuming for that purpose only) so intimidating, is it the small size?  Kohl Center isn't small and is multi-purpose and seems to do just fine.  Same with Assembly Hall and the Carrier Dome.  I'm trying to understand stand why a multi-purpose facility automatically can't be intimidating.

You have to have the right combination of the building size, proximity of seats (i.e. students) to the court, and acoustics to create an intimidating atmosphere (which can be replicated in a multi-purpose arena), but the real key in creating an advantage for the home team is in eliminating open space. 

Granted, no college or professional athlete goes into even the most hostile of environments thinking they're going to be accosted by a fan on that day (unless you're playing at the Dunk, I suppose), but psychologically, the "home field/court" advantage plays (or preys) on our primal instincts in two manners, one of which is the "must protect home/family from bear" that provides a mental boost the home team, the other of which is the "must scare bear by looking bigger and louder than really am" that intimidates the visitor.  And frankly, there's nothing more intimidating than having no escape (i.e. turning "fight or flight" into "fight or fright").  While our comfort zones and coping mechanisms widely vary, we humans, by nature, are claustrophobic.  Now again, I'm not saying that any players are consciously thinking that the fans are going to start closing in on them at any moment, but subconsciously, when you look in every one of 360 directions around you and discover that you're completely surrounded by 9,000 fans raucously cheering for the home team, that's going to register somewhere deep in your psyche... whether such affects one's game play can be debated, and even if so, probably depends on the player's preparation/performance.  But that's part of the science behind home field advantage (and it's not just the players you're trying to intimidate, it's the referees - i.e. more favorable whistles - as well).  Although I won't go into much detail here, the elevation:proximity ratio also plays a meaningful factor in preying on the visitors' instincts, and that's something that isn't that meaningful at the BC court when the people sitting eye-level to the players on the court are 50-60 feet away.

Look at the Joyce... every single square foot of that building is either a seat or a "barely-meets-fire-code" aisle.


Same thing with Cameron:


The Kohl Center suffers from "Base Line Promenades" and "Bare Corner Syndrome" just like the BC, which is somewhat mitigated by the fact that they have an Olympic sheet of ice (almost) which is wider, and thus more proportional (L:W) to a basketball court than the BC's American sheet which is more narrow and disproportionate.  Nevertheless, they do somewhat make up for that by stacking a third deck on top of the second, unlike the BC which has a single upper deck.  I don't know the exact measurements, but I would guess that a nosebleed seat in the Kohl is only 65-75% of the distance from the court than a nosebleeder in the BC.



Incidentally, DePaul's issue isn't anything to do with Allstate's design, their issue rests entirely with location and fan support.  Hell, and it pains me to say this, but if you could drop Allstate at 4th and State, I'd take that over the BC any day of the week.  The corners are filled in, the second deck is closer to the floor, though they still have the same problems with space behind the base lines that plague every multi-purpose basketball arena out there... and let's be honest here, from the FT-shooter's perspective, the big heads at the BC (or Allstate) look regular sized (they - and the students - need to be 30-50 feet closer).



When you build your arena larger than it has to be for the game (Piper - I'm referring to a basketball court being smaller than a hockey rink... not seating capacity), you create open space, which takes away a big part of that intimidation factor.  Again, I will concede that you can replicate the noise, acoustics, proximity, etc. in a larger facility, but having that "nowhere to run" element is a big part of the home court advantage.  That's something the new Bucks arena won't have.  I agree that it will be better than the BC just in the fact that it's being designed for basketball, and to the extent the new arena smell draws more MU fans, it will be even better... but the new arena is still going to suffer from BLP's and BCS - that's simply the reality with any multi-purpose arena.

Sure, having to play in a multi- facility sucks, and admittedly, I'm a huge advocate of an on-campus (or near-campus) basketball arena for MU.  That being said, I am looking forward to the new Bucks arena, but unfortunately, I just don't see the gameday experience (for fans and players) being a night-and-day improvement from what we have now.

However, I would be remiss to ignore that having beer at the BC (and, presumably, at the new Bucks arena) makes it better for the fans than almost every college arena out there (that doesn't have beer).

[GGGG]

Granted, no college or professional athlete goes into even the most hostile of environments thinking they're going to be accosted by a fan on that day (unless you're playing at the Dunk, I suppose), but psychologically, the "home field/court" advantage plays (or preys) on our primal instincts in two manners, one of which is the "must protect home/family from bear" that provides a mental boost the home team, the other of which is the "must scare bear by looking bigger and louder than really am" that intimidates the visitor.  And frankly, there's nothing more intimidating than having no escape (i.e. turning "fight or flight" into "fight or fright").  While our comfort zones and coping mechanisms widely vary, we humans, by nature, are claustrophobic.  Now again, I'm not saying that any players are consciously thinking that the fans are going to start closing in on them at any moment, but subconsciously, when you look in every one of 360 directions around you and discover that you're completely surrounded by 9,000 fans raucously cheering for the home team, that's going to register somewhere deep in your psyche... whether such affects one's game play can be debated, and even if so, probably depends on the player's preparation/performance.  But that's part of the science behind home field advantage (and it's not just the players you're trying to intimidate, it's the referees - i.e. more favorable whistles - as well).  Although I won't go into much detail here, the elevation:proximity ratio also plays a meaningful factor in preying on the visitors' instincts, and that's something that isn't that meaningful at the BC court when the people sitting eye-level to the players on the court are 50-60 feet away.

This is all fine and good.  But do you have any evidence that this is the case?  Is there any evidence to suggest that teams with more intimate arenas outperform those without more intimate arenas when you normalize for how good they are otherwise?  You reference the "science behind home field advantage."  Is there such a science?

[warriorchick]

This is all fine and good.  But do you have any evidence that this is the case?  Is there any evidence to suggest that teams with more intimate arenas outperform those without more intimate arenas when you normalize for how good they are otherwise?  You reference the "science behind home field advantage."  Is there such a science?

Let's not forget that for a brief moment a couple of years ago, we had the longest home-court winning streak in all of D1 basketball. Longer than Kentucky.  Longer than Duke.  Longer than everyone. Not bad for a team that has a supposed sub-par game-day atmosphere.

[mu03eng]

This is all fine and good.  But do you have any evidence that this is the case?  Is there any evidence to suggest that teams with more intimate arenas outperform those without more intimate arenas when you normalize for how good they are otherwise?  You reference the "science behind home field advantage."  Is there such a science?

And if there is such a science why can't the Bucks tap into that science as part of their arena construction?  Or does Scoop auto correct magic to science? 

[Benny B]

This is all fine and good.  But do you have any evidence that this is the case?  Is there any evidence to suggest that teams with more intimate arenas outperform those without more intimate arenas when you normalize for how good they are otherwise?  You reference the "science behind home field advantage."  Is there such a science?

Scorecasting: The Hidden Influences Behind How Sports Are Played and Games Are Won, Moskowitz & Wertheim, 2010.
Find it used from $1.76 on Amazon
In short: in all major professional sports, home teams win 54-69% of the time.  There's no denying the statistics that a home-field advantage exists, but why?  The authors test a lot of theories and find that one, in particular, offers a pretty simple explanation (hint: think zebras).

For further reading, I'm sure one could Google-search "science of home field advantage," but it's the Christmas season, and I'm in a giving mood.  And what luck, the first site I stumbled upon has a pretty decent synopsis, and oh look, not only do they cite Scorecasting, but there's also a gem of a reference to a research paper written by a professor at the University of Bonn (the "Harvard of Germany" a/k/a the "UW of Europe") noting the effect that proximity plays in home-field advantage.

http://freakonomics.com/2011/12/18/football-freakonomics-how-advantageous-is-home-field-advantage-and-why/

Sorry guys, but this isn't some Chicos-style grasping at the straws of existentialism... while there is no firm answer to the question of "why," there's clearly something to be found here when over 60% of NBA contests go to the home team.

And if there is such a science why can't the Bucks tap into that science as part of their arena construction?  Or does Scoop auto correct magic to science? 

The Bucks are ignoring this because in professional sports, it's not about winning, it's entirely about economics.  You don't build your stadium/arena to win games, you build them to maximize revenue.  Oh yeah, and politics... because of course, you stand a better chance of gaining public support if your nine-figure playhouse can do more than host a basketball game.


I'm not saying anything at the BC is sub-par... I'm just saying that it could be much better, and the Bucks new arena is not the answer.  Frankly, I'm perfectly content with MU fielding a championship-caliber team that doesn't need to rely on home court advantage, but the same reasons that lend to said advantage also lend itself to the "atmosphere" at the game (even though nothing's going to change my status as a season-ticket holder short of death).

When the Thunderdome opens in 2045*, I look forward to the "damn, Benny was right about a basketball arena 30 years ago... this place is awesome."

* Estimated.  Subject to change.

[mu03eng]

Scorecasting: The Hidden Influences Behind How Sports Are Played and Games Are Won, Moskowitz & Wertheim, 2010.
Find it used from $1.76 on Amazon
In short: in all major professional sports, home teams win 54-69% of the time.  There's no denying the statistics that a home-field advantage exists, but why?  The authors test a lot of theories and find that one, in particular, offers a pretty simple explanation (hint: think zebras).

For further reading, I'm sure one could Google-search "science of home field advantage," but it's the Christmas season, and I'm in a giving mood.  And what luck, the first site I stumbled upon has a pretty decent synopsis, and oh look, not only do they cite Scorecasting, but there's also a gem of a reference to a research paper written by a professor at the University of Bonn (the "Harvard of Germany" a/k/a the "UW of Europe") noting the effect that proximity plays in home-field advantage.

http://freakonomics.com/2011/12/18/football-freakonomics-how-advantageous-is-home-field-advantage-and-why/

Sorry guys, but this isn't some Chicos-style grasping at the straws of existentialism... while there is no firm answer to the question of "why," there's clearly something to be found here when over 60% of NBA contests go to the home team.

The Bucks are ignoring this because in professional sports, it's not about winning, it's entirely about economics.  You don't build your stadium/arena to win games, you build them to maximize revenue.  Oh yeah, and politics... because of course, you stand a better chance of gaining public support if your nine-figure playhouse can do more than host a basketball game.


I'm not saying anything at the BC is sub-par... I'm just saying that it could be much better, and the Bucks new arena is not the answer.  Frankly, I'm perfectly content with MU fielding a championship-caliber team that doesn't need to rely on home court advantage, but the same reasons that lend to said advantage also lend itself to the "atmosphere" at the game (even though nothing's going to change my status as a season-ticket holder short of death).

When the Thunderdome opens in 2045*, I look forward to the "damn, Benny was right about a basketball arena 30 years ago... this place is awesome."

* Estimated.  Subject to change.

But again, how do you account for the BC being home to the longest home court winning streak in the NCAA during the 2011-2013 at 27 games?  That shouldn't have happened right?

[martyconlonontherun]

I guess I don't see Benny's point. We all agree that if we could have steep, compact seats to fit in as many people as possible close to the court....Better yet, have students line entirely around the court 5 deep it would create the best basketball advantage. That would create an intense environment that forces everyone to stand, be close to the action and yell the whole game.

But who would want that? The fans? Besides students paying for cheap tickets, no alumni is going to shell out the dough to attend the game and be uncomfortable the whole time. Compromises have to be made and the powers at be would rather play in a state of the art arena funded by the state and the Bucks, give alumni nice amenities, and stuff the coffers of the basketball program. And I think they made the right call. I would take a profitable program where every student has the advantage to get seats in a bigger arena than playing at a dump like the arena.

Asking for a 13K arena that is single purpose and new is out of the question. It's either the new arena, the MECCA or the AL.  If we are day dreaming, imagine discount beer night for students who attend at tipoff. Just think how packed and intimidating our student section would be then.

[GGGG]

Benny. That link attempts to determine the factors that create a home field advantage. But it doesn't address if an arena like Cameron is any more effective than one like the BC.

[martyconlonontherun]

But again, how do you account for the BC being home to the longest home court winning streak in the NCAA during the 2011-2013 at 27 games?  That shouldn't have happened right?

I don't think he is wrong in that a small stadium has an impact. I bet if there was a study that could be done based on number of fans in a square footage there would be some kind of effect show....But we will never know and I doubt the impact is that big. He is just completely ignoring the benefits of playing in brand new NBA arena that is paid for by the state and the Bucks. Did he forget about the advantages of being able to have the cash to go after Shaka and get Wojo. Where does that money come from when we either 1) pay for a new arena or 2) only draw 10k at the MECCA? I would much rather have the cash for a big-time coach, spoil players with luxuries like more TAs/better designed equipment, marketing for recruiting, flying Wojo across the country etc. Those IMO are much bigger impact on on-the-court success versus a little extra motivation from the crowd.

[jsglow]

I think I've been drunk 3 times since this thread started.  I win.   

[Dr. Blackheart]

Wrigley is small and compact.  Still waiting for that World Series ring.

[DienerTime34]

The Bucks are currently 8-5 at the BC and 2-10 on the road this season. Maybe opposing teams are just intimidated by how quiet it is and are thrown off by the tunnels behind the hoop.

[martyconlonontherun]

Kind of funny that we are having this argument on why home court is so advantageous and we completely rule out the obvious considering the game on Saturday night. Best team in the league lost to a below average Bucks team. Did the playoff like crowd help? Sure but there were still a ton of Warriors fans and these are pro athletes so they don't get phased as much. Just look how tired they looked with no legs on their jumpers. They were freaking exhausted from traveling. There is a reason no NBA team has gone undefeated on a 7-game road trip. It has more to do with not being able to go home and sleep in your bed and change in your own lockerroom than anything inside the arena.

[keefe]

Longer than everyone

Well, I am an Air Force pilot...

[Spotcheck Billy]

At least we're not UWM

UW-Milwaukee's men's basketball team has played three home games so far this season and has drawn 5,565 fans.

That's not a per-game average. It's the three-game total.

Ticket prices start at $10 and top out at $20 (not including courtside seats) for games at the UW-Milwaukee Panther Arena. If there's a better ticket for a sports event in downtown Milwaukee, I'd like to see it. And frankly, the Panther Arena is a better place to watch a basketball game than is the BMO Harris Bradley Center.

The Panthers are 8-3, have beaten the University of Wisconsin and on Sunday set a school scoring record in a 125-74 victory over Judson. They've won four straight games and are 3-0 at home, despite playing in an arena that typically is about 80% empty.

[Dr. Blackheart]

The MECCA was and is a dump. However, turning down the lights with the cloud of cigarette smoke hanging over the court created an exciting environment. Like our jersey designs, the NCAA has banned about 75% of the hijinks that we got away with like the toilet paper fireworks, the band playing during the game action, our mascot, unsportsmanlike chants, poking a drum stick into the back of the inbounder, air horns or whistles, climbing on the scorer's table after a victory on the road.  A televised game was a rarity and was treated as a Super Bowl. 

Everyone I bring to the BC loves the whole game experience.  They cannot believe it is being called obsolete.  Times have changed and it is more about the fan experience as every game is on national tv.  Hell, MU couldn't give away tickets to The Al game a year ago.

[keefe]

Like our jersey designs, the NCAA has banned about 75% of the hijinks that we got away with like the toilet paper fireworks, the band playing during the game action, our mascot, unsportsmanlike chants, poking a drum stick into the back of the inbounder, air horns or whistles, climbing on the scorer's table after a victory on the road. 

They f#cked up perfection, man...

[Benny B]

But again, how do you account for the BC being home to the longest home court winning streak in the NCAA during the 2011-2013 at 27 games?  That shouldn't have happened right?

Because we had a damn good team that played a lot of damn poor teams at home.

The point is that the new Bucks arena isn't going to be much of an improvement from the BC, relative to the improvement of going to a basketball arena.  Again, I make no secret about my preference for an on-campus arena, but I also recognize the economics of the situation which makes such a scenario a very poor trade-off.

Bottom line: The new Bucks arena is going to be better than the BC - I don't think any of us disagree on that point.  My ultimate point is, quite simply, that it's not going to be great.  Personally, I believe that the atmosphere and experience of basketball suffers when the game is played in a multi-purpose arena; that's merely my opinion drawn from myexperience of having seen basketball in a variety of different venues -- everything from the aforementioned church-to-gym metamorphosis (I didn't make that up) to the Humpty Bump (or Dump, depending on your locale of origin).  In time, I'm sure some will agree just as I'm sure that others will never agree... but that's not to say every one of us isn't going to enjoy being in the new Bucks arena; however, we shouldn't walk into the new arena in a few years thinking there's a light shining down from the heavens (it's probably just one of those new LED bulbs if there is).

In other words, just because we have hope and dreams doesn't mean that having to "settle" for something less is a bad thing, especially when it's better than what we had; but it also doesn't mean we should give up our dreams.  Fortunately, I'm young enough to still have an iota of said hope that MU will see an on-campus arena in my lifetime.

[mu03eng]

Because we had a damn good team that played a lot of damn poor teams at home.

The point is that the new Bucks arena isn't going to be much of an improvement from the BC, relative to the improvement of going to a basketball arena.  Again, I make no secret about my preference for an on-campus arena, but I also recognize the economics of the situation which makes such a scenario a very poor trade-off.

Bottom line: The new Bucks arena is going to be better than the BC - I don't think any of us disagree on that point.  My ultimate point is, quite simply, that it's not going to be great.  Personally, I believe that the atmosphere and experience of basketball suffers when the game is played in a multi-purpose arena; that's merely my opinion drawn from myexperience of having seen basketball in a variety of different venues -- everything from the aforementioned church-to-gym metamorphosis (I didn't make that up) to the Humpty Bump (or Dump, depending on your locale of origin).  In time, I'm sure some will agree just as I'm sure that others will never agree... but that's not to say every one of us isn't going to enjoy being in the new Bucks arena; however, we shouldn't walk into the new arena in a few years thinking there's a light shining down from the heavens (it's probably just one of those new LED bulbs if there is).

In other words, just because we have hope and dreams doesn't mean that having to "settle" for something less is a bad thing, especially when it's better than what we had; but it also doesn't mean we should give up our dreams.  Fortunately, I'm young enough to still have an iota of said hope that MU will see an on-campus arena in my lifetime.

I can kill your dreams of an on-campus arena real fast.....if there is an on campus arena for Marquette only, there will be no beer/mixed drinks for sale at the arena.  That will kill any benefit of a home crowd for sure.