Attendance declines
- Thread starter snowling
- Start date
I wonder if the changes to schedules for TV were factored in. Try to find a Saturday big ten home game. Not that many. Today’s game was a Sunday. Takes alumni travelers out of the equation. Just saying these crazy start times for TV may be a factor. Go Hoosiers!
TV has taken a giant $#!+ on all the fans that try to support the team in person.
Agreed. There was ONE Big Ten game yesterday. That's ridiculous. Today's IU game was a noon start - not very accommodating for a lot of folks from the farther reaches of the state and a guarantee of low student attendance.
The Iowa game was an 8 pm start last week. I live an hour from Bloomington and got home right at midnight. Getting up for work at 5 am the next day wasn't a lot of fun. The universities are cashing big tv checks and giving a giant middle finger to fans in the stands.
The other option is to have a lot of games being played simultaneously which means lots of games with no TV. IU is still ok under that scenario as the ratings are there and they get on the tube regardless, but other programs lose out. Does Pu want to have games at inconvenient times or have half their games with no TV?
I get it. If I'm an AD or university President i'm sure I would be influenced by the $$. And yes, exposure is important - especially where local media presence is not extensive. I think that explains in large part why Bob Knight was so opposed to the influence of tv on scheduling and start times and Gene Keady was an open advocate of a more flexible schedule. It just sucks for people who spend the money on tickets who actually want to be at as many games as possible.
I do think that to some extent the schools must choose. I think the sub-optimal start times and days are going to damage actual attendance and if you want the money, you have to live with it and hope it more than offsets lost ticket, concession, and parking revenue. I'm sure the research says take the tv money, but sometimes I wonder if a league like the B1G uses its influence to the fullest to get a more fan-friendly deal from the networks. It seems to me that the networks are as dependent on the schools as the schools are on the networks. To a degree, I fault the ADs for not driving a harder bargain with respect to maintaining strong attendance.
I would also add that basketball is a different animal than football. Game length, which I think is a serious and growing detriment to college football attendance, is not nearly as severe a problem in basketball.
I would add that regarding IU specifically, I would go back to issuing students seat-specific season tickets. Issue them before the season and make everything left over available to waitlisted season ticket holders. If they aren't all sold, create more mini-packages or make them available to everyone - student or non - for the same price on a game-by-game basis. It's important to fill the seats.
As for the balcony, I wouldn't sit there at any price. I never complain about attendance up there because it's a shitty experience to watch a game from there. But I'm sure there are those who would gladly occupy those seats at the right price. It would be nice if the university would offer to resell them for no fee if a balcony-level season ticket holder didn't plan to attend.
We started many years ago as a recent grad and sat in the balcony for three seasons. We got used to it quickly and didn't mind it. CC and DD were good sections with good views to watch plays develop. It is just high up like any large area's nosebleeds.
I think a huge part of this is an inevitable social change. Streaming services in particular render millennials content to watch games on their phones & other devices. Just a sign of the times.
Honestly, I think the tv scheduling has ruined part of the “fever” for basketball. I can’t figure out what the heck they are doing and stopped trying this year. I have spent this year checking into the box score on ESPN during the game to see how it is going. It has sucked trying to watch games
Agreed. This isn't 1985 when there was no internet, no smartphones, and only a handful of games were televised on any given Saturday.
Declining attendance is hardly just an IU problem. Attendance is down conference-wide, and in other conferences as well. And, with respect to football, it's not just the college game. NFL attendance in 2019 dropped to a 15 year low.
There's just a ton of competition for a fan's entertainment dollar these days. A lot of people are simply unwilling to sit still for three and a half hours or longer in a football stadium when they could be home watching the game on their own giant TV or at Joe's Bar and Grill watching five games at once.
Winning would fix this issue. There was one decent basketball season between 2013 and 2019.
Major League Baseball has proven $100millionaires can be paid out to play in front of empty stadiums and it makes no difference.
Tickets are for local fans...
Networks and merchandising are for revenue...
Tickets are for local fans...
Networks and merchandising are for revenue...
Yeah, I don't think it's any worse than the top levels of Banker's Life Arena in Indy.
At AH, you actually seem closer to the action than in Banker's Life.
It's also pretty cool to see the ball movement from that perspective. Once you get used to it, it's not bad. I've been up there when the balcony was literally shaking when the Hall was rocking. That's a little disconcerting, knowing there are no support beams underneath! lol
The site lines in the balcony are not bad if you are towards the center and lower down but the times I have sat up there I have felt disconnected to the game. More like watching it on TV.
Well, it's not the greatest, but I've sat in row 46 or so on the main level and you can't even see across to the other side! It's awful.
In any stadium, after you get past 10k - 12k seats, you're looking at being far from the action. At one time, the balconies were always packed. Then we got rid of the bad man.
Basketball attendance is down primarily because we have 1/3 of our home games while the students are off campus. “Attendance” is usually calculated by tickets sold. IU has a sellout for all games when students are on campus.
The generic "games at break" (save Arkansas this year) are a drag. Just dead. Typically a 50/50 call at Nick's or wherever pregame if even worth driving the 5 mins and going in.
Still think an "Indiana State Tournament" Crossroads weekend would be as big as a major conference tournament weekend in Indy.
Seed it based on week of rankings, and go.
That and we give too many tickets to students. The big blocks of empties are all student tickets. It gets old.
Agreed, but they do not affect “attendance” figures as the tickets are “sold”. A lot of problems with distribution of tickets - students & faculty/staff to name two
normally market forces, (price-demand curve), would keep stadiums and arenas pretty much full.
donation weighted point systems, seat licenses, and similar programs/charges, plus all adult non club type seats having the same ticket face value regardless of row 20 on the 50 yrd line or row 70 behind the end zone, take all normal market forces out of the equation.
when all tics carry the same face value, if 25,000 adult tics can be sold at $60 a tic, and the price would need to be lowered to $15 a tic to sell 50,000 to the same game, it's literally twice as profitable gate wise only, ($1.5 mil vs $750,000), to only sell half the capacity.
the loyal 20,000 base who will buy regardless of price, (up to a point), disincentivizes even trying to increase attendance.
as does any tying of student fball tics to bball tics.
tiered pricing of seats relative to desirability would help increase attendance, while not decreasing gate revenue as much as reducing the price of all tics enough to achieve the same attendance gain, but still might cannibalize top end sales enough that total gate would be less than just maxing price and relying on that 20,000 loyal base plus walk up.
in the end, you can't max both gate revenue and attendance.
that said, factoring in parking and other incremental revenue, plus factoring in building the base, the effect of attendance on recruiting, we could do much much better than we are doing balancing revenue with attendance.
i have no doubt i could get 50,000 in house for every warm weather game, with only a negligible total revenue loss, if any.
but when the administration is guaranteed more in revenues before game 1 than all dept expenses combined, what incentive is there to put in any effort.
wouldn't you love to be CEO for a company that is guaranteed more revenue than they can spend before day 1, (and keep non profit status), and has zero incentive to increase sales.
we could significantly increase attendance to all non sucky weather games with only negligible, if any, loss of total revenues..
but it would require an administration that actually was motivated to do so.
donation weighted point systems, seat licenses, and similar programs/charges, plus all adult non club type seats having the same ticket face value regardless of row 20 on the 50 yrd line or row 70 behind the end zone, take all normal market forces out of the equation.
when all tics carry the same face value, if 25,000 adult tics can be sold at $60 a tic, and the price would need to be lowered to $15 a tic to sell 50,000 to the same game, it's literally twice as profitable gate wise only, ($1.5 mil vs $750,000), to only sell half the capacity.
the loyal 20,000 base who will buy regardless of price, (up to a point), disincentivizes even trying to increase attendance.
as does any tying of student fball tics to bball tics.
tiered pricing of seats relative to desirability would help increase attendance, while not decreasing gate revenue as much as reducing the price of all tics enough to achieve the same attendance gain, but still might cannibalize top end sales enough that total gate would be less than just maxing price and relying on that 20,000 loyal base plus walk up.
in the end, you can't max both gate revenue and attendance.
that said, factoring in parking and other incremental revenue, plus factoring in building the base, the effect of attendance on recruiting, we could do much much better than we are doing balancing revenue with attendance.
i have no doubt i could get 50,000 in house for every warm weather game, with only a negligible total revenue loss, if any.
but when the administration is guaranteed more in revenues before game 1 than all dept expenses combined, what incentive is there to put in any effort.
wouldn't you love to be CEO for a company that is guaranteed more revenue than they can spend before day 1, (and keep non profit status), and has zero incentive to increase sales.
we could significantly increase attendance to all non sucky weather games with only negligible, if any, loss of total revenues..
but it would require an administration that actually was motivated to do so.
Last edited:
This shouldn't surprise people given modern technology. Televisions that display 70in screens in ultra high definition gives a much better view of the action than many seats in house.
Interesting comments. I say if we put a better team on the floor the fans will be in the stands. Dickie V even pointed out fans leaving before the end of the Purdue game. That was unheard of. Upper balcony seats are for nubeys who are happy to be at games live. Put a better team on the floor, period. Start with some damn defense!
