Attendance at NCAA

[CrazyDave]

Re: Attendance at NCAA

I have a thought as far as attendance related specifically to the Frozen Four.

It appeared to me that the Frozen Four was the missing the youth players and their parents that came to Gopher games during the regular season. Typically there are two or three youth teams at the arena. Why weren't they at the FF?

Well, it's called "reduced price (if not free) admission". The youth teams in attendance are typically involved in the game, either (a) picking up the practice pucks pregame after warmups or (b) playing a short scrimmage at the start of each intermission (or both). I'm sure that they're not paying even the youth bench price.

Now let's look at the Frozen Four. First, there were no youth teams involved in the activities I just mentioned. Second, chairback seat and youth & senior bench prices were triple the regular season rates at Minnesota; bench seat prices for all other adults were nearly triple as well. And I have my doubts that there was any group-rate pricing. So to bring a group of 20 kids and some adult chaperones was probably running in the neighborhood of $400 -- funds that most youth hockey associations probably don't have to spend.

 

[D2D]

Re: Attendance at NCAA

I would assume the NCAA sets the ticket prices and the host school has little or no influence? Would be interesting to know more about the decision-making and who is involved with this. In hindsight, they certainly could have charged less for youths and students not only to help fill the building but to help build future fan support for the game.

In general, maybe they could have had lower advance purchase prices for everybody, with the goal of selling out. Then once it became clear that this would probably happen, cut off the advance lower prices and start to charge more? The airline industry has made a science out of this!

 

[pgb-ohio]

Re: Attendance at NCAA

I like this idea - I agree that it would be a small proportion of the men's fans that would attend - but even a small proportion would certainly increase the attendance.

Agreed.

And - it would eliminate this dumb conflict with conference championships, which I do think really hurts the women's game.

Very strongly agreed! This has been my opinion since the Women's FF landed on the current weekend. It's interesting and encouraging to see that someone from the East feels the same way.

The conflict occurs with a vengence in the Twin Cities. Thousands of hockey fans attend the Final Five every year, regardless of the participating teams. Those tickets aren't cheap, and fans attending 4 or 5 games in a three day period are probably out of time and energy as well.

Also, let's not forget that this same weekend generally opens the NCAA hoops tournaments, both Men's and Women's. So the casual fan is already spoken for -- and probably in greater numbers than any other plausible option.

I'm not sure which weekend would be ideal for the Women's FF. I am a bit concerned that the Men's FF weekend would be seen as an awfully late finish for the Women's teams. But the current weekend is almost a worse case scenario from an attendance perspective.

 

[pgb-ohio]

Re: Attendance at NCAA

Believe it or not, the rationale (as stated in the Sept. 2004 committee meeting) of moving the tournament earlier in the year, effective 2007, was to avoid conflicting with the NCAA men's hockey tournament. But somehow conflicting with EVERY conference tournament wasn't a problem? Still baffles me to this day.

I wasn't previously aware of that, and appreciate knowing this history.

The decision baffles me as well. If avoiding the Men's tournament is really the driving principle, then the open weekend between the Men's Regionals and the Men's FF suggests itself as a better solution for the Women's FF.

 

[ARM]

Re: Attendance at NCAA

I still concur that womens hockey just does not bring out fans. If it is so exciting, then please explain why the attendance is so paltry around the board. It is not just a case of marketing. Women's Hockey is just not a sport which will attract fans. What it does attract is some parents, close friends and maybe once in a while, the support of some students who come out for their school. There is no need to get so sensitive when these comments are made...it just is true. Show me some PROOF as to how what I am saying is so wrong. You can give the standard answer how I am just a men's hockey fan etc etc but their is nothing that can back up the claim that it is just a case of marketing the sport better.

Obviously, much of what you are saying here is correct -- it doesn't attract fans in large numbers. But it does manage to attract some like myself, neither related to a player or even knowing any of them, not a student or former student of the school. I haven't bought a ticket to a men's hockey game in 20 years. I'll watch it on TV, but when the better players keep one eye fixed on the NHL looking for the right time to bolt, I don't feel the same loyalty to them.

Many in a situation like mine that wind up getting exposed to the game become hooked. You might start out without any connection to the people involved, but you form friendships with parents of your players and some on other teams, members of fan bases around the country, and you get to meet players from various backgrounds and learn they are worthy of your support.

I have a thought as far as attendance related specifically to the Frozen Four.

It appeared to me that the Frozen Four was missing the youth players and their parents that came to Gopher games during the regular season. Typically there are two or three youth teams at the arena. Why weren't they at the FF?

For an event like the Frozen Four, it is crucial that it be attended by future players, former players, and their families. If they don't support their own game, who will? Clearly not the typical young male like davinchi. Women's hockey is NOT men's hockey, and it shouldn't try to be. The people who say they don't watch because there isn't checking would still complain that the players are too small/slow/weak if checking was added. But for the parents of a young girl, a Chu or Darwitz will be a more appropriate role model for her than will a Tiger Woods or an Alex Ovechkin. Let her get excited about the game, and maybe some day we will all be supporting her.

The people who made their way into the Frozen Four were there in large part because it was their highest priority for the weekend. We should be able to attract enough such fans so that we aren't worried about what the masses are doing on any given day, because those people are always going to choose something like men's basketball instead. That's the way it has always been, and the networks, the beer sponsors, and even the President reinforce that belief. But there is hope, because I was once one of those people who would have glued myself to the tube to watch NCAA BB, and now when women's hockey is being played, I just don't have time for basketball.

 

[dave1381]

Re: Attendance at NCAA

I would assume the NCAA sets the ticket prices and the host school has little or no influence? Would be interesting to know more about the decision-making and who is involved with this.

Whatever they're doing, it's not working. I doubt the current strategy is maximizing revenue, in either a static or dynamic sense.

Doing some kind of price discrimination clearly makes sense here.

 

[Sean Pickett]

Re: Attendance at NCAA

To support womens athletics (financially) with the same vigor as mens just doesnt make good business sense. A lot of the men's sports (the popular ones in the US I mean) generate revenue while 95% of womens athletics teams operate at huge losses.

The last time this old horse reared it's ulgy head I recall that it was stated only 3 men's sports make money: football, basketball and hockey. And not all schools make money even in these sports. Should those school's drop football, basketball and/or hockey? Should school's drop all the non-revenue men's sports?

For those interested in the beginning of women's hockey at Cornell (the second school to sponser it as a varsity sport), you can read this <a href=http://cdsun.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/newscornell?a=d&d=CDS19711012.2.1.8&e=--------20--1-----all>article</a> about the team's struggles and this <a href=http://cdsun.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/newscornell?a=d&d=CDS19720222.2.9.1&e=--------20--1-----all>article</a> on women's sports, focusing on fencing and ice hockey. Both are from <a href=http://cdsun.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/newscornell?>The Cornell Daily Sun Digital Archives</a>.

Sean

 

[unofan]

Re: Attendance at NCAA

I wanted to stay out of this thread, but some of the things remind me too much of a political thread.

First off, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't wish to tie your product into the men's fan base (see the Fenway Park experience, or hoping to move the Women's Frozen Four into the Men's Frozen Four package) hoping to siphon off even a percentage of its fans and then get upset when the men's fanbase says things about your sport.

Secondly, there are only 4 postseason events that make money for the NCAA - D1 men's basketball, D1 men's hockey, D1 baseball, and D1 wrestling (Men's lacrosse might be a money maker these days, haven't seen recent figures). Add in TV money, and men's hoops accounts for over 90% of the NCAA budget. The single biggest money loser is women's hoops (again, as of a few years ago, this might have changed). So stop worrying about the attendance at a one-off event. I doubt the soccer tournaments or the D1-AA football tournament agonize over attendance issues.

Finally, if I ever have a daughter, I'll certainly encourage her to play sports. I'll attend her games, and cheer her teams on. But don't tell me that not wanting to watch (insert women's sport here) because it's less appealing than (insert men's sport here) will somehow harm my relationship with her. Statistically speaking, any future daughter I might have will be more likely to want to watch the men's event, too. And my wife certainly falls into that category as well.

Likewise, thinking Title IX could use revisions certainly does not mean I hate all women's sports. The sporting landscape has changed a lot in the last 30-40 years. I don't think it's unreasonable to look at the law to study where it's done well (increased sporting participation by women) and where it's done poorly (near death of some men's sports) and try to remedy the latter while maintaining the former.

 

[pgb-ohio]

Re: Attendance at NCAA

...First off, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't wish to tie your product into the men's fan base (see the Fenway Park experience, or hoping to move the Women's Frozen Four into the Men's Frozen Four package) hoping to siphon off even a percentage of its fans and then get upset when the men's fanbase says things about your sport.

If the attendees at the Men's FF are ever forced to purchase tickets to the Women's FF in order to attend the Men's games, this comment would have some merit. At the same time, having a valid consumer complaint doesn't give a poster license to spout off without any risk of rebuttal.

Ultimately I would hope and anticipate that the tickets to the two Frozen Fours would be sold separately -- much as the Skills Contest is sold as a separate ticket now.

Secondly, there are only 4 postseason events that make money for the NCAA - D1 men's basketball, D1 men's hockey, D1 baseball, and D1 wrestling (Men's lacrosse might be a money maker these days, haven't seen recent figures). Add in TV money, and men's hoops accounts for over 90% of the NCAA budget. The single biggest money loser is women's hoops (again, as of a few years ago, this might have changed). So stop worrying about the attendance at a one-off event. I doubt the soccer tournaments or the D1-AA football tournament agonize over attendance issues...

Well, I'm not sure that anyone is "agonizing." Regardless, I think you're wrong about the importance of crowd support. Most sporting events are enhanced by supportive fans, and I'd guess that the vast majority of D-1 programs give some thought as to how to improve the level of support. Yes, season tickets are going to be a tough sell for non-revenue sports. But any sports community is going to want good crowds at the most important games of their year. I'm genuinely surprised that someone would suggest otherwise.

 

[unofan]

Re: Attendance at NCAA

But any sports community is going to want good crowds at the most important games of their year. I'm genuinely surprised that someone would suggest otherwise.

I don't think it's always a leading consideration, though, and the definition of a "good crowd" will constantly vary. A good crowd in the ECAC is different than a good crowd for the WCHA. A good crowd in D1 men's hoops is different than a good crowd for D1 women's soccer.

For NCAA women's hockey, 500 is a "good" crowd, and anything with 4-figures is excellent. You're not going to grow crowds at the NCAA finals until you grow regular season crowds first. Ticket prices don't really affect it too much either up to a point; My somewhat-educated opinion is that attendance would have only been marginally higher even if the tickets were $1 each. And as far as free tickets go, there's ample evidence that even minimal ticket prices actually encourage higher attendance than free tickets because you are more likely to attend something on which you've spent money over something given away.

 

[ARM]

Re: Attendance at NCAA

For NCAA women's hockey, 500 is a "good" crowd, and anything with 4-figures is excellent. You're not going to grow crowds at the NCAA finals until you grow regular season crowds first.

At the venue in question, 500 is a very poor crowd. The crowds tend to be worse in the postseason than during the regular season, in part because we lose the advance group sales for youth teams.

 

[unofan]

Re: Attendance at NCAA

At the venue in question, 500 is a very poor crowd. The crowds tend to be worse in the postseason than during the regular season, in part because we lose the advance group sales for youth teams.

You got 1500, though, which was still above the season average of 1100. Not bad considering women's hockey isn't exactly a sport lots of people will travel for.

 

[ARM]

Re: Attendance at NCAA

You got 1500, though, which was still above the season average of 1100. Not bad considering women's hockey isn't exactly a sport lots of people will travel for.

It was pretty bad. A lot of those in attendance were UMD fans. Attendance was better in 2001 when Minnesota didn't even qualify for the Frozen Four. If we can't fill a 3,000+ seat arena with a field that includes the host team, then it is time for some other program to give hosting a shot. Atmosphere wasn't bad because the building is small, but had that been in Mariucci, it would have been dead.

 

[Hux]

Re: Attendance at NCAA

You got 1500, though, which was still above the season average of 1100. Not bad considering women's hockey isn't exactly a sport lots of people will travel for.

As was stated earlier, that was the paid attendance. I'd say the place was at least 3/4 full.

It was pretty bad. A lot of those in attendance were UMD fans. Attendance was better in 2001 when Minnesota didn't even qualify for the Frozen Four. If we can't fill a 3,000+ seat arena with a field that includes the host team, then it is time for some other program to give hosting a shot. Atmosphere wasn't bad because the building is small, but had that been in Mariucci, it would have been dead.

Again, tough to bang out a building when your target market is spread out across the state attending district tryouts for the NDCs, or in the case of the WHAM ladies, attending to state championships to go to Nationals. Were the NDC tryouts and Women's State Championships on another weekend you put another 300-400 fannies in the seats.

 

[ARM]

Re: Attendance at NCAA

Were the NDC tryouts and Women's State Championships on another weekend you put another 300-400 fannies in the seats.

I get Sunday being low. But if we can't sell out for UMD/UM, the best game we could hope for in terms of a local draw ...

We had the hardcore GWH fans. There were a good number of former players and their families. The UMD fan turnout was okay. Given the distance, Mercyhurst representation wasn't bad. Cornell had some folks, probably many of whom had a Kelly McGinty connection. But there weren't many people coming to just watch an NCAA championship, and I'd guess that part of that is the media coverage was just plain lousy. It gets worse every year, the attendance declines with it, and it becomes a vicious cycle. The newspapers don't cover it because they say people don't care, and people care less in part because they don't cover it.

 

[dave1381]

Re: Attendance at NCAA

It gets worse every year, the attendance declines with it, and it becomes a vicious cycle. The newspapers don't cover it because they say people don't care, and people care less in part because they don't cover it.

That's part of the problem with having it in Minnesota for the third time, I guess. As you suggested, better give someone else a chance. I expect Erie will give the event much better support.

 

[ARM]

Re: Attendance at NCAA

I expect Erie will give the event much better support.

Agreed. Looking ahead a year, I guess that there won't be any easy NCAA quarterfinal opponents. I'd imagine that an Erie Frozen Four w/o the Lakers would feel a lot different than one with them in the field.

 

[JosephPSchmoe]

Re: Attendance at NCAA

You're not going to grow crowds at the NCAA finals until you grow regular season crowds first.

At the 2008 Frozen Four in Duluth, we had over 4000 for the championship game. I don't know why there weren't more at Ridder last weekend, haven't done the in-depth "agonizing" about it, so I'm just throwing that in the mix.

 

[Nowheresville]

Re: Attendance at NCAA

For NCAA women's hockey, 500 is a "good" crowd, and anything with 4-figures is excellent. You're not going to grow crowds at the NCAA finals until you grow regular season crowds first. Ticket prices don't really affect it too much either up to a point; My somewhat-educated opinion is that attendance would have only been marginally higher even if the tickets were $1 each.

The problem with this theory is that the Womens Frozen Four has drawn a much larger crowd in previous years. Nearly all of the previous events have drawn more than 3,000 people. The last time it was held in Minneapolis, 4500 people showed up, and there were even more people then that when it was in Duluth a couple years ago.

I've been to Ridder for a regular season game where there were 1500 people in the crowd, even when there was a mens game going on at the exact same time next door, so there is a problem when the frozen four is getting basically the same number.

And I don't think you can ignore the ticket prices, because they are rather expensive. I started going to womens games because they were cheap entertainment, where I can see a game with my family for $15. The Frozen Four tickets were $35 for both sessions - that means I'm looking at spending $100 to take the family (I believe the individual sessions were $20 each?). That's certainly not a price point designed to fill the seats. Heck, the MENS Frozen Four in Detroit is offering ticket packages to the tourney for $40 just to try to get some people into Ford Field.

I'd like to see Madison get a chance to host this event in the Future. I think it would do quite well if you held it at the Colliseum. I also think the event could do quiet well in towns like Mankato or St. Cloud, where you might get a larger community turnout from people who wouldn't otherwise be exposed to the game.

 

[pgb-ohio]

Re: Attendance at NCAA

I don't think it's always a leading consideration, though, and the definition of a "good crowd" will constantly vary. A good crowd in the ECAC is different than a good crowd for the WCHA. A good crowd in D1 men's hoops is different than a good crowd for D1 women's soccer.

Clearly correct, but I don't think anyone's disputing this.

Obviously there's disagreement on what constitutes a good crowd for the Women's FF. But no one's saying the event is capable of filling an NHL-sized arena. Most of those offering measuring sticks are referring to past Women's FFs.

For NCAA women's hockey, 500 is a "good" crowd, and anything with 4-figures is excellent. You're not going to grow crowds at the NCAA finals until you grow regular season crowds first.

It wouldn't hurt to grow the regular season crowds, but I disagree with your if/then logic. Any number of sports get their biggest crowds of the year for their championship games. We need look no further than the Men's Frozen Four for an example.

What most of us are saying is that we'd like to see the Women's Frozen Four be a tournament where the support goes well beyond the participating schools, just as it does for the Men's FF. The current dates, at least to some extent, are standing in the way of that goal.

Ticket prices don't really affect it too much either up to a point; My somewhat-educated opinion is that attendance would have only been marginally higher even if the tickets were $1 each. And as far as free tickets go, there's ample evidence that even minimal ticket prices actually encourage higher attendance than free tickets because you are more likely to attend something on which you've spent money over something given away.

On this point we agree. I'd only add that a meaningfully lower price for kids does make a difference for families.