Women's D1 Attendance

[Mountie Clever]

Re: Women's D1 Attendance

discernible:able to be discerned; perceptible.
"the scandal had no discernible effect on his career"
synonyms: visible, detectable, noticeable, perceptible, observable, distinguishable, recognizable, identifiable; More

I have to agree with D2D, nothing discernible other then the popularity is not growing like we'd like to see! I further discern that the "5%, or flat line, or the decrease" = nothing?

 

[Sean Pickett]

Re: Women's D1 Attendance

I have completed compiling attendance for Hockey East home games and updated my Hockey East women's attendance.

Season to season 4 teams increased attendance and 4 teams declined in attendance, while Merrimack had a great inaugural season, leading the league in overall and average attendance. However, it remains to be seen if they can retain those fans next season. More concerning is that 7 of 8 teams had a decline in attendance since the 2012-13 season, from -1.4% to -13.2%, with only Vermont having a modest increase of 6.4%. Furthermore, all 8 teams have had declines from their peak average attendance, from -1.4 % to -64.2%, with 5 of them declining by at least 30%.

In looking at individual games it is clear that attendance varies greatly, with high attendance appearing to occur for special promotions and what local fans consider big games (i.e., Beanpot, league tournament, NCAA, important league games. arch-rivals). In looking at the regular season games not including Beanpot, Hockey East tournament, and NCAA quarterfinals, it is clear that those games raise a team's overall average, usually by a significant amount. Also, many time there is good attendance for one game of a two game series, usually the first, but poor attendance for the other game.

Sean

 

[driventoit]

Re: Women's D1 Attendance

As good a thread as any to link to this excellent indictment of the NC$$. Read it and weep.

"The NCAA's Women Problem"

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/26/opinion/the-ncaas-women-problem.html?

 

[Timothy A]

Re: Women's D1 Attendance

As good a thread as any to link to this excellent indictment of the NC$$. Read it and weep.

"The NCAA's Women Problem"

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/26/opinion/the-ncaas-women-problem.html?

This blew my mind..... "Over at the men’s tournament, the N.C.A.A. pays for success: Each game a team plays (not including the championship) earns the team’s conference roughly $260,000 this year plus $260,000 each of the five following years."

How much freaking money does the ncaa make? It's RIDICULOUS! There needs to be a major house cleaning. A team should make no money off any tourney, just get all expenses paid. The ncaa should ensure all the brackets are of the highest integrity and that there is equity between the genders. Pretty simple.

 

[Sean Pickett]

Re: Women's D1 Attendance

Once again schools in the WCHA held the top four spots in terms of average attendance for D1 women's hockey in 2015-16. But somewhat disappointing is the fact that there is no discernable upward trend in the numbers that the sport is attracting. Except for Cornell - back in 2013-14 only - no other school, other than the four below, cracked the 1,000 barrier in any year. Here are the average attendance numbers for the Top 4:

.................Minnesota.....Wisconsin......MN-Duluth.....North Dakota
2015-16..... 2,125 ........... 2,019 .......... 1,331 .......... 1,009
2014-15..... 2,037 ........... 1,922 .......... 1,130 .......... 1,150
2013-14..... 2,394 ........... 2,329 .......... 1,150 .......... 1,263

I took a look to see how the other 4 WCHA teams did this season and they came in 12th (489 avg), 15th (422 avg), 28th (232 avg) and 32nd (177 avg) in average attendance this season. So well the top WCHA teams have done well, the bottom teams are still having trouble drawing fans. If you want to discuss growing the sport you really need to discuss how to increase attendance across the board, not just at the top. In this regard both Merrimack, which had a solid first season attendance wise, and RIT, which has been in the top 7 in attendance since joining DI, are programs that should be looked at to see what they are doing.

................ RIT
2015-16..... 698 ..... 7th
2014-15..... 873 ..... 5th
2013-14..... 699 ..... 7th
2012-13..... 650 ..... 7th

Sean

 

[pokechecker]

Re: Women's D1 Attendance

This blew my mind..... "Over at the men’s tournament, the N.C.A.A. pays for success: Each game a team plays (not including the championship) earns the team’s conference roughly $260,000 this year plus $260,000 each of the five following years."

How much freaking money does the ncaa make? It's RIDICULOUS! There needs to be a major house cleaning. A team should make no money off any tourney, just get all expenses paid. The ncaa should ensure all the brackets are of the highest integrity and that there is equity between the genders. Pretty simple.

so if the NC$$ doesn't give the money to the schools, what are the fat cats that run it supposed to do with it?
More hookers & blow at a conference in the Bahama's?

sorry, but the NC$$ is just returning it to the people that earn it, so the cycle repeats itself.
This is America, not Canada, not Sweden, at least not yet
At the U of MN, women's hockey is a negative 2 million to have a program. Who pays for that?
certainly not the fans.
Men's hoops, men's hockey, men's football, pathetic as those three sports are, foot the bill.
That's probably why they call it football.
A couple of women may have inherited their daddy's money and give it to the U, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to what men give.
Buying season tickets, but never showing up for games isn't exactly the best way to support a team either.

If you want to live in Utopia, move to freakin' Canada.
If your kid does well enough, maybe you'll be lucky to have them attend an American University.
And maybe you'll be lucky enough to retire to Florida or Arizona some day.

 

[ne7minder]

Re: Women's D1 Attendance

so if the NC$$ doesn't give the money to the schools, what are the fat cats that run it supposed to do with it?
More hookers & blow at a conference in the Bahama's?

sorry, but the NC$$ is just returning it to the people that earn it, so the cycle repeats itself.
This is America, not Canada, not Sweden, at least not yet
At the U of MN, women's hockey is a negative 2 million to have a program. Who pays for that?
certainly not the fans.
Men's hoops, men's hockey, men's football, pathetic as those three sports are, foot the bill.
That's probably why they call it football.
A couple of women may have inherited their daddy's money and give it to the U, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to what men give.
Buying season tickets, but never showing up for games isn't exactly the best way to support a team either.

If you want to live in Utopia, move to freakin' Canada.
If your kid does well enough, maybe you'll be lucky to have them attend an American University.
And maybe you'll be lucky enough to retire to Florida or Arizona some day.

Boy that sure is a lot on non sequiturs and unrelated malarkey in defense of a political philosophy that has nothing to do with the complaint made. Men's hockey is not a money generating sport. Even in the 2 or 3 places where it is it generates nothing close to the millions a year needed to meet the requirement. Yet the NCAA gives that money to mens programs and gives . . . how much to the womens side? That is the source of Tim's outrage - that the he11 was your point other than a political rant?

 

[pokechecker]

Re: Women's D1 Attendance

people here in the US, at least Minnesota anyway, are always arguing
"that's how they do it in Canada"
or "that's how they do it in Sweden"
so go to Canada or Sweden then if it is so wonderful

where do you suppose the NCAA gets the money?
it is from the people that go to the games, and the TV rights

how much money was earned from the TV rights to the Women's hockey tournament?
compare that to football or hoops

it does have to do with politics, how the H did the legislation get passed?

so you are saying the U of MN men's hockey does not generate money?
show me the proof

 

[bobbunnell]

Re: Women's D1 Attendance

I took a look to see how the other 4 WCHA teams did this season and they came in 12th (489 avg), 15th (422 avg), 28th (232 avg) and 32nd (177 avg) in average attendance this season. So well the top WCHA teams have done well, the bottom teams are still having trouble drawing fans. If you want to discuss growing the sport you really need to discuss how to increase attendance across the board, not just at the top. In this regard both Merrimack, which had a solid first season attendance wise, and RIT, which has been in the top 7 in attendance since joining DI, are programs that should be looked at to see what they are doing.

................ RIT
2015-16..... 698 ..... 7th
2014-15..... 873 ..... 5th
2013-14..... 699 ..... 7th
2012-13..... 650 ..... 7th

Sean

Div 3 top 5 :

1 Plattsburgh 482
2 Middlebury 396
3 Elmira 365
4 Castleton 322
5 Adrian 303

Read more: http://www.uscho.com/stats/attendance/division-iii-women/2015-2016/#ixzz443tjKJu8

 

[Blackbeard]

Re: Women's D1 Attendance

so if the NC$$ doesn't give the money to the schools, what are the fat cats that run it supposed to do with it?
More hookers & blow at a conference in the Bahama's?

At the risk of encouraging you, this could be your most entertaining post yet. I haven't stopped laughing since I first read it, and that was a few hours ago.

 

[ManBehindTheCurtain]

Re: Women's D1 Attendance

Here is the comparison I keep an eye on, a competitively hugely successful Minnesota DIII team separated by about 15 miles and/or about 20 minutes of easy four lane highway driving from a DI team not doing very well by any competitive measure:

14th in DIII: Gustavus Adolphus, 10 home dates, total attendance 2,006, average attendance 201.

32nd in DI: Minnesota State, Mankato, 18 home dates, total attendance 3,185, average attendance 177.

 

[FireKnight]

Re: Women's D1 Attendance

Boy that sure is a lot on non sequiturs and unrelated malarkey in defense of a political philosophy that has nothing to do with the complaint made. Men's hockey is not a money generating sport. Even in the 2 or 3 places where it is it generates nothing close to the millions a year needed to meet the requirement. Yet the NCAA gives that money to mens programs and gives . . . how much to the womens side? That is the source of Tim's outrage - that the he11 was your point other than a political rant?

According to the NCAA, men's hockey is a money generating sport.

Women's hockey is an expensive proposition. Over at Clarkson, we foot the bill for it on our own and the school is getting nothing back in attendance...people just don't go to games, even with a national contending team. Add into that, Clarkson doesn't make a dime off the D-1 tournament in either men's or women's, a stipulation of their "play up" grandfather clause.

 

[D2D]

Re: Women's D1 Attendance

According to the NCAA, men's hockey is a money generating sport.

This article focuses on the disparity between reported attendance (tickets sold) and actual scanned tickets (butts in the seats) at Gopher men's hockey games, but it includes an interesting comparison of how the top schools rank in terms of revenues generated by their hockey programs. Men's hockey is clearly a money generating sport at all of these schools.

"Last season, Minnesota men’s hockey took in $5.73 million in revenue outpacing Wisconsin $4.78 million, Penn State $3.68 million, Providence $3.30 million, Boston University $3.28 million, Minnesota-Duluth $3.20 million, Colorado College $3.17 million, North Dakota $3.12 million, Nebraska-Omaha $2.99 million, Michigan $2.98 million, St. Cloud State $2.88 million, and Boston College $2.78 million according to data available from the Department of Education."

http://www.gopherpucklive.com/gopher-mens-hockey-scanned-tickets-fall-six-percent/

 

[FireKnight]

Re: Women's D1 Attendance

This article focuses on the disparity between reported attendance (tickets sold) and actual scanned tickets (butts in the seats) at Gopher men's hockey games, but it includes an interesting comparison of how the top schools rank in terms of revenues generated by their hockey programs. Men's hockey is clearly a money generating sport at all of these schools.

"Last season, Minnesota men’s hockey took in $5.73 million in revenue outpacing Wisconsin $4.78 million, Penn State $3.68 million, Providence $3.30 million, Boston University $3.28 million, Minnesota-Duluth $3.20 million, Colorado College $3.17 million, North Dakota $3.12 million, Nebraska-Omaha $2.99 million, Michigan $2.98 million, St. Cloud State $2.88 million, and Boston College $2.78 million according to data available from the Department of Education."

http://www.gopherpucklive.com/gopher-mens-hockey-scanned-tickets-fall-six-percent/

Thanks for the info. How much is a ticket at Mariucci anyway?

 

[D2D]

Re: Women's D1 Attendance

Thanks for the info. How much is a ticket at Mariucci anyway?

Unless you are a student or staff, roughly $40-$50, depending on opponent. But lately cheaper on the secondary market, like StubbHub or from scalpers out front.

 

[ne7minder]

Re: Women's D1 Attendance

people here in the US, at least Minnesota anyway, are always arguing
"that's how they do it in Canada"
or "that's how they do it in Sweden"
so go to Canada or Sweden then if it is so wonderful

where do you suppose the NCAA gets the money?
it is from the people that go to the games, and the TV rights

how much money was earned from the TV rights to the Women's hockey tournament?
compare that to football or hoops

it does have to do with politics, how the H did the legislation get passed?

so you are saying the U of MN men's hockey does not generate money?
show me the proof

Again with the nonsense arguments. We are not talking hoops or football, leave them out of it. Those two actually generate money for the NCAA. Yes, at a half dozen schools Mens hockey brings in more than it costs but mens hockey is not a big draw at the national level & makes nothing like the sort of money awarded for post season appearances. Does it make more than womens hockey? For sure but your claim is that the NCAA is just returning money the sport earns. You have yet to defend that and instead have tossed in reed herrings like football & basketball and tried to conflate your political myopia with the disparity the NCAA has created.

And on a side note do you have any idea how you sound when you write stuff like "A couple of women may have inherited their daddy's money "? As if most of the big donors are not men who inherited daddy money?

 

[Sean Pickett]

Re: Women's D1 Attendance

This article focuses on the disparity between reported attendance (tickets sold) and actual scanned tickets (butts in the seats) at Gopher men's hockey games, but it includes an interesting comparison of how the top schools rank in terms of revenues generated by their hockey programs. Men's hockey is clearly a money generating sport at all of these schools.

"Last season, Minnesota men’s hockey took in $5.73 million in revenue outpacing Wisconsin $4.78 million, Penn State $3.68 million, Providence $3.30 million, Boston University $3.28 million, Minnesota-Duluth $3.20 million, Colorado College $3.17 million, North Dakota $3.12 million, Nebraska-Omaha $2.99 million, Michigan $2.98 million, St. Cloud State $2.88 million, and Boston College $2.78 million according to data available from the Department of Education."

http://www.gopherpucklive.com/gopher-mens-hockey-scanned-tickets-fall-six-percent/

It seems that this thread is getting off-topic, one which I was hoping for some discussion about. That said, I really would like to know what is include in that reported revenue. Providence had a total home attendance of 44,907 for their men's team for the 2014-15 season. For them to have $3.3 million in revenue that comes to $73.49 per fan. That drops to $38.07 for BU and $29.58 for BC.

In looking for those numbers I got sidetracked by the NCAA's DI Revenues & Expenses Report for 2004-14. It breaks down everything into the Football Bowl Subdivision, Football Championship Subdivision and without Football. In looking at the ice hockey numbers for revenues and expenses and coaching salaries I immediately noticed an interesting thing: both FBS and non-football schools spend more on men's and women's ice hockey then FCS schools do. And I'm taking about a small difference, the median expenses for FCS schools is over a $1 million less for men's teams and about a $1 million less for women's teams. I suspect that it is because FCS football is a drain on athletic programs, so they have less money to direct towards ice hockey. I created a spreadsheet with 2014 Hockey Revenues & Expenses using the numbers from the NCAA report (I added "Actual Net Difference" columns as the NCAA appears to use fuzzy math).

Sean

 

[Skate79]

Re: Women's D1 Attendance

I have completed compiling attendance for Hockey East home games and updated my Hockey East women's attendance.

Season to season 4 teams increased attendance and 4 teams declined in attendance, while Merrimack had a great inaugural season, leading the league in overall and average attendance. However, it remains to be seen if they can retain those fans next season. More concerning is that 7 of 8 teams had a decline in attendance since the 2012-13 season, from -1.4% to -13.2%, with only Vermont having a modest increase of 6.4%. Furthermore, all 8 teams have had declines from their peak average attendance, from -1.4 % to -64.2%, with 5 of them declining by at least 30%.

In looking at individual games it is clear that attendance varies greatly, with high attendance appearing to occur for special promotions and what local fans consider big games (i.e., Beanpot, league tournament, NCAA, important league games. arch-rivals). In looking at the regular season games not including Beanpot, Hockey East tournament, and NCAA quarterfinals, it is clear that those games raise a team's overall average, usually by a significant amount. Also, many time there is good attendance for one game of a two game series, usually the first, but poor attendance for the other game.

Sean

I can't speak for other ECAC schools but at Harvard, we usually average around 400 fans and some of those are freebies or promotional giveaways. Our big attendance boost comes from a promotion we call "White the Bright" where fans are encouraged to wear white to one particular home game in February (this season it was Yale. Attendance: 2118 a new record).

 

[Sean Pickett]

Re: Women's D1 Attendance

I can't speak for other ECAC schools but at Harvard, we usually average around 400 fans and some of those are freebies or promotional giveaways. Our big attendance boost comes from a promotion we call "White the Bright" where fans are encouraged to wear white to one particular home game in February (this season it was Yale. Attendance: 2118 a new record).

Skate79, thanks for your post. Yes, in looking at individual game attendance for all the Hockey East teams I usually came across one or two games a season which had much large crowds than normal for most of the teams. I assume that those were heavily promoted games, but then attendance drops back down. The question is how much do the promotions affect long term attendance, if at all?

The good news is that attendance at Hockey East schools is up since the league started (and BU and Vermont joined) at 6 of the 8. Only New Hampshire (-50%) and Connecticut (-25%) have seen declines, while BC (+312%) , NU (+138%) and UVM (+164%) have seen huge increases, with the other 3 having modest increases. So despite the more recent attendance issues since 2012-13, the long-term trend has been positive. Hopefully the recent setbacks were temporary and attendance will once again increase over the coming seasons.

I'm considering researching ECAC and WCHA home attendance as I have done for Hockey East, but I'm not sure its worth my time as there seems to be limited interest in the subject.

Sean

 

[FireKnight]

Re: Women's D1 Attendance

Clarkson's average attendance has been horrible:

2013-14: 401 (this number is skewed by the ECAC semifinals, where fans of all 4 teams were counted in 1 attendance) Without the ECAC semi: 337
2014-15: 471 (this number is largely skewed by the banner raising, which had 2500 fans) Without the banner raising game: 351
2015-16: 313

If this is all they can draw for a world-class team with **** near free tickets, I don't know how else to draw fans.