The Larger Issue With College Basketball Attendance

[The Equalizer]

But a major factor for a Season Ticket Holder customer, both in the past and future .. is simply the opponents we play.  The "big game count."   In the old days, STHs bought those 10 crappy games to get 10 Big Games.  Those days are over, never to return.

Present and future? Maybe.  Past?  Not a chance.

In the old days, IF you were lucky enough to be offered a Marquette ticket, you took it and went to the game, regardless of the opponent. 

You did it because you never knew when you might have a chance to get another.  You certainly couldn't walk up to the box office and pick a game based on the opponent--all games were sellouts for years.  Students only got tickets to half the games--if they got tickets at all. The general public was all but locked out.

We certainly didn't have 10 Big home games in the GMC, MCC or CUSA days--unless you count teams that we couldn't wait to get away from as being "big." And we certainly didn't play 10 big home games as an independent--unless you apply some ex-post-facto reasoning to imply that playing Xavier and Butler of the 1970s is the equivalent of playing them today. Check their history--they were the Presbyterians and Chicago States of that era.

Here's something to chew on: The entire decade of the 80's we played only 11 ranked opponents at home. The entire decade of the 90's we played 15. 

We'll probably face 4 ranked opponents at home this year alone.  And we're supposed to have pity on today's STH?

So the tradeoff is that instead of a lousy team you may have heard of, we're playing a lousy team you haven't heard of. And you'll see 3 to 4x the number of ranked opponents in a season.

But because demand is consistently 4,000 to 5,000 seats below capacity, people now feel they can pick and choose their opponent, then complain when every game doesn't meet some arbitrary worthiness threshold.

We could solve the attendance and no-show issue once and for all by returning to a 10,000 seat arena.  It wasn't the number of "Big" games on the schedule that dictated ticket purchases or eliminated no-shows--it was the difficulty in getting a ticket. Nothing would solve this faster than creating constraints on capacity.

[mu_hilltopper]

From my observation, most of the folks that dropped their season tickets were already towards the back of the line, and therefore had less to lose by not renewing. ..

Most of the folks who dropped their seats will only be penalized a few rows or perhaps one section if they decide to start buying them again. 

I hadn't thought about "who" had dropped tickets, so that's some decent commentary. 

But .. while we agree the "who" is likely skewed to short-timers, regardless of that factor, people who dropped, dropped for a reason.    Indeed, the long-timers had a lot to lose, and that door is likely completely shut.  But those short-timers didn't accidentally drop their tickets.

So why?  Why does an upper-deck (likely) young alumni drop tickets, and the subsequent question, how does that decision get reversed?   Were they fair weather fans, dropping on the 1-2-3rd season of unhappy on-court performance, and could be ready to jump back on the bandwagon?  Or did they drop for less whimsical reasons, that their 60 hours of time and $700-1500 in dollars garner enough value?

I'd suggest that regardless of the reason, getting BACK a customer is harder might well be harder than finding a new one.  The former customer knows how "fun" it is to plunk down $40-75, commute to the BC, find parking, and watch MU on a Tuesday night pummel a cupcake with a half empty BC.

#debbiedowner

[mu_hilltopper]

...

So, in conclusion, of the 100 seasons of MUBB, roughly 20 of those years (~1965-1985) it was hard to get a MU ticket, and in the first ~85 seasons, we rarely played ranked teams, so customer issues uttered today about value are asking for pity.

And a 10,000 stadium would indeed create some scarcity, and shake loose complainers.   

Great points!

[Dr. Blackheart]

Again, the Coors Light Corner was a credit to Marquette from Learfield.  A make good.  MUAD made money as it required a seat donation. And the $100 covered the beer cost.  Pretty successful pilot.

[warriorchick]

We could do what Creighton is doing tonight.  Dollar Beer Night.

Who the hell is running their marketing?  They already have close to a sellout, they are playing Providence, and they're having Dollar Beer Night tonight?  Why not use that for the cupcakes?

[naginiF]

We could do what Creighton is doing tonight.  Dollar Beer Night.

Who the hell is running their marketing?  They already have close to a sellout, they are playing Providence, and they're having Dollar Beer Night tonight?  Why not use that for the cupcakes?

with 0 research that sounds like it would be a BMO Harris Center initiative (and the equivalent for Creighton) vs. a Marquette initiative since, it's my understanding that, BMO Harris gets concession $'s and not Marquette.

But I agree the MU contacts to BMO need to push this.....just not their ultimate decision.

[brandx]

We could do what Creighton is doing tonight.  Dollar Beer Night.

Who the hell is running their marketing?  They already have close to a sellout, they are playing Providence, and they're having Dollar Beer Night tonight?  Why not use that for the cupcakes?

Not quite. The dollar beer was for the players.

The teams have combined to shoot 22% for the game and have already missed 76 shots and they are only midway through the 2nd half. Can they hit 100 missed shots for the game?

I knew beer and good golf didn't go together. Apparently, beer and good basketball don't either.

[bilsu]

With all the games on TV there is no need to buy tickets.

[bradley center bat]

With all the games on TV there is no need to buy tickets.

Being at the game is so much more than watching on TV.

[forgetful]

Not quite. The dollar beer was for the players.

The teams have combined to shoot 22% for the game and have already missed 76 shots and they are only midway through the 2nd half. Can they hit 100 missed shots for the game?

I knew beer and good golf didn't go together. Apparently, beer and good basketball don't either.

I think I could shoot better than that drunk.

[brandx]

I think I could shoot better than that drunk.

Yahoo. They kept in under 100.

Only 97 missed shots in the game.

Beer & Hoops do go together.

[jsglow]

Not quite. The dollar beer was for the players.

The teams have combined to shoot 22% for the game and have already missed 76 shots and they are only midway through the 2nd half. Can they hit 100 missed shots for the game?

I knew beer and good golf didn't go together. Apparently, beer and good basketball don't either.

Ha.  Both teams looked beer drunk all night.  That is until the final possession when Dunn savored his Smirnoff Ice.  Helluva step back J.  Guess the Jays failed to watch #mubb's defensive game tape

[GooooMarquette]

Not quite. The dollar beer was for the players.

The teams have combined to shoot 22% for the game and have already missed 76 shots and they are only midway through the 2nd half. Can they hit 100 missed shots for the game?

I knew beer and good golf didn't go together. Apparently, beer and good basketball don't either.

I always bowled better drunk.  At least that's how I remember it....

[CTWarrior]

I always bowled better drunk.  At least that's how I remember it....

Me too.  Thinking and bowling don't go together too well.

[mug644]

Me too.  Thinking and bowling don't go together too well.

Note, though, that bowling, like pool, darts, horseshoes, croquet, bocce ball, and ping pong, among others, are officially recognized as drinking sports.