RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

How's Tournament Attendance?

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ripleydc



Joined: 17 Nov 2004
Posts: 4778
Location: Washington, DC


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/23/15 1:28 pm    ::: How's Tournament Attendance? Reply Reply with quote

Anybody tracking how 1st and 2nd rounds are doing?

Any change with top seeds hosting vs predetermined sites last year?


FS02



Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 9699
Location: Husky (west coast) Country


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/23/15 5:09 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Looks pretty good so far: In the second round, South Carolina had over 10 thousand(!), Iowa over 7k, Notre Dame and Oregon State over 5k.



_________________
@dtmears2
Durantula



Joined: 30 Mar 2013
Posts: 5221



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/23/15 7:48 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

New York Times has some not so great publicity for attendance. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/24/sports/ncaabasketball/dukes-arena-hasnt-been-as-crazy-lately-for-the-womens-team.html


summertime blues



Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 7746
Location: Shenandoah Valley


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/23/15 7:50 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Not like we didn't know that already......



_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
readyAIMfire53



Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 7355
Location: Durham, NC


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/23/15 10:53 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Durantula wrote:
New York Times has some not so great publicity for attendance. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/24/sports/ncaabasketball/dukes-arena-hasnt-been-as-crazy-lately-for-the-womens-team.html


The drastic decline in attendance at Duke Women's BBall games should be its' own story. It should not be used as an indicator of overall decline in interest and attendance at NCAA tourney games. It's akin to the steep decline at Washington Mystics games in the Trudi Lacey era. Bad product + Bad fan relations = Bye bye



_________________
Follow your passion and your life will be true down to your core.

~rAf
PRballer



Joined: 18 Apr 2007
Posts: 2535



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/24/15 12:37 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

readyAIMfire53 wrote:
Durantula wrote:
New York Times has some not so great publicity for attendance. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/24/sports/ncaabasketball/dukes-arena-hasnt-been-as-crazy-lately-for-the-womens-team.html


The drastic decline in attendance at Duke Women's BBall games should be its' own story. It should not be used as an indicator of overall decline in interest and attendance at NCAA tourney games. It's akin to the steep decline at Washington Mystics games in the Trudi Lacey era. Bad product + Bad fan relations = Bye bye


Agree and had the same reaction when I read the New York Times. Shouldn't we expect better from the NY Times?

I found it unfortunate that the reporter only focused on the stats on attendance for the Duke program without looking at why nor going into how pre-determined sites greatly affected the tournament for several years after the "all-time high" of 2004. Nor did the reporter (and I'm not saying I agree) go into how UConn's dominance in the last decade might be an indicator for plateaued interest across the sport.

To me, the reporter could have looked at what's happened to women's basketball as a whole over the last decade for the stagnation vs. just looking at Duke and North Carolina. It's hard to draw wider conclusions based on those two programs.

Duke is a standalone example of declining attendance for a particular program and the issues are relevant only to that program, not the entire sport! So while it supports a thesis as an example - and a glaring one at that - and it has nothing to do with women's basketball as a whole. I believe it merits its own investigation as to why that particular program is on the decline. That's a different story and it has everything to do with the coaching change. Talk all you want about G vs. P, but the product on the floor was better in Durham before 2007. The attendance numbers prove that.

So let's really look at the sport across the country, shall we? Attendance has dropped off slightly at Connecticut and Tennessee for various reasons. But it's also risen at places like South Carolina, Iowa State, Louisville, Notre Dame etc. in the last decade. Baylor has come on strong with fan support and solidifying it's place in Waco and regionally with fans who travel. Look at Gonzaga. Stanford has been pretty consistent. Cal has risen, though it is small. Michigan State has drawn well in the last decade. Oklahoma can potentially bounce back and have crowds that compare to the great attendance during the Paris sisters' years, but overall the program has grown in the past decade. Purdue is on a slight decline but they were always a national leader when the program was stronger - again, a coaching change there. Kinda of like Duke. Maryland has been consistent, if a slight dip since their national championship in 2006. LSU? Dipped since their Final Four dominance and again, a coaching change.

I wouldn't be too concerned. Some programs draw better than others. With the new/return to the old NCAA format, it will be awhile until we get back to averaging 6000+ in the opening rounds. It just takes time and I believe that under the current format, we will see fuller arenas.

There are so many factors and reasons for this perception about the women's game stagnating in recent years. Heck, the powers that be commissioned Val to do the Great White Paper. I would like to see what's aided to this perception and what can be done about it, but articles like the NYT one here do not help with deeper analysis and show a lack of broader understanding of the women's game.

So, no thanks. Next?


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9544



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/24/15 1:04 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

readyAIMfire53 wrote:
Durantula wrote:
New York Times has some not so great publicity for attendance. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/24/sports/ncaabasketball/dukes-arena-hasnt-been-as-crazy-lately-for-the-womens-team.html


The drastic decline in attendance at Duke Women's BBall games should be its' own story. It should not be used as an indicator of overall decline in interest and attendance at NCAA tourney games. It's akin to the steep decline at Washington Mystics games in the Trudi Lacey era. Bad produ ct + Bad fan relations = Bye bye


Duke was 11-5 in conference (arguably the best conference in the country) and 23-10 overall. That isn't even a bad record, let alone comparable to when the Washington Mystics had single-digits wins. If the fans are gonna drastically change their attendance based on a 23-10 season, that should be more of a criticism of the fans. They apparently only want to watch wins.


greatgator



Joined: 20 Dec 2012
Posts: 142



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/24/15 6:57 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
If the fans are gonna drastically change their attendance based on a 23-10 season, that should be more of a criticism of the fans. They apparently only want to watch wins.


We were formerly Duke Women's Basketball season ticket holders and have been attending since the Goestenkors era. We opted not to renew this year because:
- Years of un-enjoyable offense;
- Disgusting McCallie social media antics,
- Repeated criticism of team by McCallie, while not taking any personal responsibility as a coach.
- Repeated transfers of players
- Repeated departures of assistant coaches
- Mysterious departures of Chloe Wells in 2014 with no acknowledgement or explanation by Duke.

We decided that we could find more enjoyable things to do with our leisure time and entertainment $$ and that we would take a break from going to games this season.

We have no regrets and will not be back until Duke puts a better product on the floor with a coach we can support.


dtsnms



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 18815



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/24/15 11:43 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Pales compared to the drop in Connecticut.

Last time UConn drew this few was against Clemson in the 90s.

3,500 for each game.

Thanks ESPN.


GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8151
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/24/15 1:54 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

dtsnms wrote:
Pales compared to the drop in Connecticut.

Last time UConn drew this few was against Clemson in the 90s.

3,500 for each game.

Thanks ESPN.


UConn's dramatic tournament attendance drop proves that tournament success, a great team and a great coach are no guarantees against loss of fan interest.

"On her final night at Gampel Pavilion, only 3,486 fans showed to watch the greatest perimeter shooter in women's college basketball history. It was the smallest UConn crowd at an NCAA Tournament game at Gampel since 2,585 fans showed up for Clemson in 1990."

"UConn sold out every tournament game from 1994 to 2003 and now it goes back to back this year with 3,666 for the first round against St. Francis Brooklyn and 3,486 for Rutgers? Yes, women's college basketball tournament attendance has slipped, but UConn was 10th of 16 sites after the first round and nothing changed Monday night."

http://www.courant.com/sports/uconn-womens-basketball/hc-jacobs-column-kml-three-point-record-column.html

I doubt the primary reason for such a precipitous attendance drop is game time, ESPN or Jacobs' hypothesized fan "entitlement". The simplest explanation is the most obvious: loss of market interest because the product has become boring to thousands of formerly avid fans.
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/24/15 2:11 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Muffett was very blunt in criticizing the 9pm Sunday night start for the ND-DePaul game and how it affects attendance during her pre-DePaul press conference.

<script height="381px" width="672px" src="http://player.ooyala.com/iframe.js#pbid=5e83fc845d86487e88b6953600eaff54&ec=R1bzg0dDptqKAiLAcnaEvp2Al3_rSEiu"></script>


insidewinder



Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 240



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/24/15 2:25 pm    ::: West Coast had issues too Reply Reply with quote

Stanford had a 3:30m Monday afternoon start time for the game against Oklahoma. A start time like that with a week's notice means some people just can't get out of their work commitments. They started eastern games too late and western games too early. How does that make any sense? I consider it a screw you to fans who attend games.


kool-aide



Joined: 09 Jun 2009
Posts: 1650



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/24/15 3:02 pm    ::: Re: West Coast had issues too Reply Reply with quote

insidewinder wrote:
Stanford had a 3:30m Monday afternoon start time for the game against Oklahoma.


There were teams with noon start times this past Friday. That is a terrible time for fans. A school/work day and a game scheduled in the middle of the day? Horrible.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/24/15 3:50 pm    ::: Re: West Coast had issues too Reply Reply with quote

kool-aide wrote:
insidewinder wrote:
Stanford had a 3:30m Monday afternoon start time for the game against Oklahoma.


There were teams with noon start times this past Friday. That is a terrible time for fans. A school/work day and a game scheduled in the middle of the day? Horrible.


This Friday is ridiculous. They have ND vs Stanford starting at 10pm and and FSU vs ASU at 9:30 pm which means they won't end until well after midnight Eastern time. Not only is that ridiculous from a fans standpoint, it's also unfair to the two eastern teams. That may be fine for teams from the Pacific time zone for whom the effective start time is only 8pm, but doesn't that give a significant advantage to Stanford and ASU? That's really not appropriate.


dtsnms



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 18815



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/24/15 4:35 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
dtsnms wrote:
Pales compared to the drop in Connecticut.

Last time UConn drew this few was against Clemson in the 90s.

3,500 for each game.

Thanks ESPN.


UConn's dramatic tournament attendance drop proves that tournament success, a great team and a great coach are no guarantees against loss of fan interest.

"On her final night at Gampel Pavilion, only 3,486 fans showed to watch the greatest perimeter shooter in women's college basketball history. It was the smallest UConn crowd at an NCAA Tournament game at Gampel since 2,585 fans showed up for Clemson in 1990."

"UConn sold out every tournament game from 1994 to 2003 and now it goes back to back this year with 3,666 for the first round against St. Francis Brooklyn and 3,486 for Rutgers? Yes, women's college basketball tournament attendance has slipped, but UConn was 10th of 16 sites after the first round and nothing changed Monday night."

http://www.courant.com/sports/uconn-womens-basketball/hc-jacobs-column-kml-three-point-record-column.html

I doubt the primary reason for such a precipitous attendance drop is game time, ESPN or Jacobs' hypothesized fan "entitlement". The simplest explanation is the most obvious: loss of market interest because the product has become boring to thousands of formerly avid fans.


Sorry, not entirely buying that at all.

Yet a Sunday afternoon game vs. Tulane in mid-February drew 9,300 people to Gampel. Mid-January vs. East Carolina, just over 9,000.

Sorry, the market being tired of the product just doesn't ring true.

The market bypassing the significance of early round games and just getting to the Sweet 16 is more likely. They had already bought tickets for Albany, or they already bought tickets for Tampa, after buying tickets for the conference tournament and regular season games.

I think there is an awful lot of "this game is on ESPN and tips at 9 pm so why go" in those numbers.

Now granted I had pressers, and some writing, but I got home both nights at 1 AM.

When my editor went to the Stanford game, did the same stuff, and sat around waiting for over an hour for my stuff from Connecticut to come to her, that's ridiculous.


dtsnms



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 18815



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/24/15 4:40 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
Muffett was very blunt in criticizing the 9pm Sunday night start for the ND-DePaul game and how it affects attendance during her pre-DePaul press conference.

<script height="381px" width="672px" src="http://player.ooyala.com/iframe.js#pbid=5e83fc845d86487e88b6953600eaff54&ec=R1bzg0dDptqKAiLAcnaEvp2Al3_rSEiu"></script>



Amen, perfect answer. Geno said the same thing. ESPN not interested in the students or the fans, interested in putting certain teams into the money maximizing spots.

I'll be interested in seeing if anything changes, because if those two coaches speaking up bluntly about it doesn't change things, nothing will.


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66773
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/24/15 4:59 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

dtsnms wrote:
I'll be interested in seeing if anything changes, because if those two coaches speaking up bluntly about it doesn't change things, nothing will.


There have been similar complaints about the scheduling in the men's tournament. Bob Huggins, of all people, said it wasn't good for the betterment of the student-athlete. They've had eastern time zone games starting at 11:00 PM.



_________________
Let us not deceive ourselves. Our educational institutions have proven to be no bastions of democracy.
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/24/15 5:13 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
dtsnms wrote:
I'll be interested in seeing if anything changes, because if those two coaches speaking up bluntly about it doesn't change things, nothing will.


There have been similar complaints about the scheduling in the men's tournament. Bob Huggins, of all people, said it wasn't good for the betterment of the student-athlete. They've had eastern time zone games starting at 11:00 PM.


The Notre Dame - Butler men's game finished after 12:30 AM. And it was played in Pittsburgh. And then there is required media access and press conferences. The team got back to its hotel at 2AM. It's ridiculous. And how does anyone expect players to perform at their best at that time of night?


cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/24/15 7:46 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I hereby DEMAND espn put ME in control of its 2016 NCAA Women's Basketball Tournament coverage.

I GUARANTEE overall attendance figures and TV viewership will beat this year's by >2.5%.



_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63712



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/24/15 7:54 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

cthskzfn wrote:
I hereby DEMAND espn put ME in control of its 2016 NCAA Women's Basketball Tournament coverage.

I GUARANTEE overall attendance figures and TV viewership will beat this year's by >2.5%.


Okay, Alan Barcoff.... Smile



_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
GEF34



Joined: 23 Jul 2008
Posts: 14102



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/24/15 11:44 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
pilight wrote:
dtsnms wrote:
I'll be interested in seeing if anything changes, because if those two coaches speaking up bluntly about it doesn't change things, nothing will.


There have been similar complaints about the scheduling in the men's tournament. Bob Huggins, of all people, said it wasn't good for the betterment of the student-athlete. They've had eastern time zone games starting at 11:00 PM.


The Notre Dame - Butler men's game finished after 12:30 AM. And it was played in Pittsburgh. And then there is required media access and press conferences. The team got back to its hotel at 2AM. It's ridiculous. And how does anyone expect players to perform at their best at that time of night?


That's crazy. I'm actually surprised they got back so quickly, with a 12:30am finish time, I'd have expected them not to get back till after 2, even closer to 2:30. But they could have cut down the media time a little bit so the teams could get out of there ASAP.


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11105



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/25/15 10:10 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

So what generates more revenue for a tournament that loses millions of dollars? A TV contract or in-arena attendance?

So should the NCAA lose more money, and conceivably an entire TV package, by demanding that the games be played at suitable times for fans and players?

And if there was less revenue coming into women's basketball at the college level, would that help or hurt the sport?

The last question, I think, is the key. If there's a sense that a return to simpler days, with lower salaries, fewer scholarships, etc., is a good thing, then the TV contract is irrelevant.

However, Title IX demands that colleges spend as much money on the women as the men, so therefore revenue becomes a critical component of any decision. From that perspective, maximizing TV revenue is very important as that's the biggest source of income for the sport as a whole.

If revenue is important, then TV trumps all. If revenue isn't important, then the fans and players should be catered to.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/25/15 10:15 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

NCAA says attendance is up this year so far.

My guess is that the numbers are entirely distorted by high numbers at Maryland and South Carolina. I wonder how they look if you eliminate those two sites and only look at the other 14.

http://espn.go.com/womens-college-basketball/tournament/2015/story/_/id/12553346/attendance-ncaa-tournament-sees-boost


ripleydc



Joined: 17 Nov 2004
Posts: 4778
Location: Washington, DC


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/25/15 10:29 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
NCAA says attendance is up this year so far.

My guess is that the numbers are entirely distorted by high numbers at Maryland and South Carolina. I wonder how they look if you eliminate those two sites and only look at the other 14.

I don't think they are "distorted" at all because every year you always have some sites that draw well and pump up the the average.

But I think it would be interesting to compare the medians, not just the means; that might provide a different picture.


Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin