Mike Anderson on FSN

[brianstl]

Since you have access to the information...how big was the increase in attendance when we hired Romar, Soderberg, and Majerus compared to when Spoon was hired. I think that a 10% increase (I'm guessing with that number) holds up pretty well.

How do you define "dirt cheap ticket prices"? Compared to other college teams at the time or what?

I am not sure on the attendance numbers for the other coaches, but will look it up.

By cheap ticket prices I mean they were the cheapest ticket in town out of the Billikens, the Blues and the Cardinals at the time. Outside of the Rams, we had the most expensive cheap seat in town last year at the begining of the season. We, also, didn't have football to compete with at the time.

[kevinfootes]

I am not sure on the attendance numbers for the other coaches, but will look it up.

By cheap ticket prices I mean they were the cheapest ticket in town out of the Billikens, the Blues and the Cardinals at the time. Outside of the Rams, we had the most expensive cheap seat in town last year at the begining of the season. We, also, didn't have football to compete with at the time.

Baseball is a tough comparison, considering you have 81 home games vs. about 15. Plus, evey baseball game is on TV and the Cardinals have a terrific history. Not to mention the fact that they pay attention to marketing.

[slufanskip]

i think joe yates was after bakken.

we agree on levick. her energy was amazing and i think she had potential to be a very good athletic director.

i think that chris may is going to be fine. while he hasnt jumped in and made big time changes, i like a lot of the changes and advancements he has made. i think chris may's biggest problem is the same the billiken athletic problem has always had,.......money.

until he gets a big time budget there isnt a lot he can do other than gradually try to change policy and promotions.

sometime at one of our secret luncheons clock we should talk about grooming the next head coach.

but Levick wasn't out there in the media. Hell we complained about the same things we're complaining about now when she was AD.

Winning will first and foremost draw fans, no one disputes that. However, while we are working on building the winning team and have all these excellent high charachter young players why aren't we getting their names and faces out there? Don't we want local fans (not fans like us) and kids in the area to get attached to KM, BC, WR. and the rest.

[brianstl]

Attendance went down Romar's first year from 15,142 to 13,631.

Attendance went down Brad's first year from 11,598 to 9,232.

[GoBills]

What's funny about this is that I think we agree about 80-90%. Obviously winning will take care of will take care of many of the attendance issues. Another key element of this is having a few more quality opponents spriknled into the home schedule. We have now made the pricing more reasonable, but the quality of the opponents has yet to be determined. I think people are willing to pay money for tickets if they feel like they're getting a good value. I'm not trying to suggest that could or should have a home schedule of teams like UCLA, Duke, UConn, etc. We all know that teams like Savannah State and UMBC will be there, but the home schedule should have at least two games against teams like BC, IMO. When you pay a big increase for tickets and then see the dull schedule, you tend to feel like you're being ripped off.

That said, I defended RM on the schedule last season. I think winning games while building a system with young players is important. I'm hoping that this calculated risk will pay off with a tourney team in two years. Attendance should improve when this happens. If you read my first post in this thread, I indicated that I wished RM would do more but was on board with him. Somehow that post made me a villain here.

Here's the point where I think we split. I pretty confident things will be better in terms of attendance in a couple of years. However, I feel like the universtity could and should be doing more now in terms of marketing to fill up seats. It goes beyond t-shirts, but if giving t-shirts to students brings an extra 300-400 out for a November or December game, that's great. It will improve our home court advantage and maybe help us get over the hump in games like Kent State last year. Just because I'm comfortable with what RM should bring us in the future doesn't mean that I don't want to win now. A little extra marketing effort certainly won't hurt.

I agree that things appear to be in better shape than they were two years ago, but we haven't arrived just yet. I've followed this team for a long time. We've gotten close a few different times and let it slip away. We appear to be in better position now than ever, but I can't let myself be complacent.

Well now that's a much more measured response than your earlier efforts. I don't have any major disagreements with what you said here and I certainly don't think any extra marketing effort would hurt, but I still think that is a fairly minor issue concerning the health of the program. With the upgrade in facilities and coach to help attract better talent, I am more encouraged than I have been in a long time (and I am fairly certain I go back even further than you) that the most important thing, the product SLU puts on the floor, is going to be better. Believe me, I have tempered my enthusiasm. Any longtime Bills fan has to, but I think the powers that be finally grasp what is more important.

As for your remark about feeling like a "villain", keep in mind that you weren't always expressing your opinion in a civil manner like you are in this latest message. One of your responses to brian (who I think has made the best, well-thought out comments usually backed with facts during this discussion) was "This is just a stupid statement to make brian." You said that in response to brian's statement that ticket prices have gone up significantly. I don't know how that can be disputed and it is certainly not "stupid." Then after I agreed with brian on a point, you hit us with "If you and brian are impressed that slu draws well, you're nuts." When people cited several reasonable explanations (not excuses) for why attendance is at it's current level, such as higher ticket prices, several years of a postseason drought, difficult economic climate, a change in the way attendance is counted (an important one, when comparing to the past), you mocked people as making "excuses." Saying I don't have "the guts" to answer a question or have low standards, calling somebody a "bozo", or saying brian "chickens out when it comes to answering a direct question" makes you seem more like a villain. If you sincerely do no want to be seen as a "villain", may I suggest a little less schoolyard stuff like you delivered early in the discussion, and a little more civil commentary like your latest effort. Everybody doesn't have to share the same opinion in a debate, that would be boring, so there is no need to get angry about it.

[GoBills]

So you really think a 700 person increase with a new coach, the first year in a vastly improved conference, in a season when we more than double our win total, with a very good home schedule, and the fact we had dirt cheap ticket prices at the time really qualifies as this?

I think not. The excitement began when we started the next season 14-0 and went 19-1 with wins in that span over SIU, MSU, Arizona St, Memphis, Depaul (twice), Marquette, Dayton, and Iowa St. That season attendance increased by about 4,500. That is how you create excitement.

That sure seems like the way I remember it too. There was not this early big groundswell of support for Spoonball. Thanks in large part to the arrival of Donnie Dobbs and in particular the development of Claggett, Spoon's first year was not great, but at least an improvement over Grawer's disasterous last year, so a bump in attendance correlated with the improved play on the floor. Bills went from 5 wins to 12. Then the next year, Brian is right on, that after that hot start the Bills got off to in year two of Spoonball, that is when the huge attendance boost happened. I remember I had a bunch of friends and business associates who never expressed an interest in SLU basketball previously, suddenly asking me for tickets.

[kevinfootes]

Well now that's a much more measured response than your earlier efforts. I don't have any major disagreements with what you said here and I certainly don't think any extra marketing effort would hurt, but I still think that is a fairly minor issue concerning the health of the program. With the upgrade in facilities and coach to help attract better talent, I am more encouraged than I have been in a long time (and I am fairly certain I go back even further than you) that the most important thing, the product SLU puts on the floor, is going to be better. Believe me, I have tempered my enthusiasm. Any longtime Bills fan has to, but I think the powers that be finally grasp what is more important.

As for your remark about feeling like a "villain", keep in mind that you weren't always expressing your opinion in a civil manner like you are in this latest message. One of your responses to brian (who I think has made the best, well-thought out comments usually backed with facts during this discussion) was "This is just a stupid statement to make brian." You said that in response to brian's statement that ticket prices have gone up significantly. I don't know how that can be disputed and it is certainly not "stupid." Then after I agreed with brian on a point, you hit us with "If you and brian are impressed that slu draws well, you're nuts." When people cited several reasonable explanations (not excuses) for why attendance is at it's current level, such as higher ticket prices, several years of a postseason drought, difficult economic climate, a change in the way attendance is counted (an important one, when comparing to the past), you mocked people as making "excuses." Saying I don't have "the guts" to answer a question or have low standards, calling somebody a "bozo", or saying brian "chickens out when it comes to answering a direct question" makes you seem more like a villain. If you sincerely do no want to be seen as a "villain", may I suggest a little less schoolyard stuff like you delivered early in the discussion, and a little more civil commentary like your latest effort. Everybody doesn't have to share the same opinion in a debate, that would be boring, so there is no need to get angry about it.

If you read the posts, brian typed "this is just a stupid thing to be bitching about". I made the "stupid" comment in response to him. So unless you're prepared to chastise everyone else, keep it to yourself. I certainly didn't start it. Bad example. I generally get along with brian, and I think he can handle himself. He certainly won't hesitate to address me directly if he feels like that is necessary.

If someone is going to use that language with me, I will respond in kind. I'm not the only one who was disappointed in the marketing effort last season, and I don't think it's "stupid" to complain about that.

I have no problem calling a person who takes cheapshots at me while claiming to be ignoring my posts a "bozo". If you knew my history with that poster, you would know that he has received warnings from steve about perverse comments made in my direction. He takes cheapshots every so often know, and I respond in kind. I do not instigate with that individual, and steve tends to keep a fairly tight leash on him.

Thanks for the lesson in civility while you repeatedly ding me for a typo.

[GoBills]

If you read the posts, brian typed "this is just a stupid thing to be bitching about". I made the "stupid" comment in response to him. So unless you're prepared to chastise everyone else, keep it to yourself. I certainly didn't start it. Bad example. I generally get along with brian, and I think he can handle himself. He certainly won't hesitate to address me directly if he feels like that is necessary.

If someone is going to use that language with me, I will respond in kind. I'm not the only one who was disappointed in the marketing effort last season, and I don't think it's "stupid" to complain about that.

I have no problem calling a person who takes cheapshots at me while claiming to be ignoring my posts a "bozo". If you knew my history with that poster, you would know that he has received warnings from steve about perverse comments made in my direction. He takes cheapshots every so often know, and I respond in kind. I do not instigate with that individual, and steve tends to keep a fairly tight leash on him.

Thanks for the lesson in civility while you repeatedly ding me for a typo.

Your last comment is really strange. What typo have a dinged you for? I am not the world's greatest speller, so I wouldn't do that and I don't care about that. As for the lesson in civility, you seemed to do a lot more than responding in kind.

[kevinfootes]

As for the lesson in civility, you seemed to do a lot more than responding in kind.

I apologize for my last comment. I misread something in your post. My bad.

If you go back and look, my first few posts in this thread were civil enough. I don't really get your point...brian writes that I'm being "stupid", I write that he's being "stupid". Why is that my problem?

Hey, it's the offseason. We have to talk about something this year...there aren't 3 open scholarships!

[CMA]

Missouri has a football progeam....they operate in a BCS conference .....they gets larger funds allocated from TV and post season appearances (but support a larer number of sports programs).......but they also play half their games mid week in a metro area of 125,000 - not 2.5 million..... mpst of its fan base is more than two hours away on a roundtrip for any home game......and they were coming off years of on an off court issues that had turned supporters away in disgust.....

I bring this up not to offer "excuses" or a rationale for the turnaround in MU home attendance, but to simply point out the programs have different marketing resources and issues to handle or market around....

MU put fans back in seats (which is different from season ticket sales), when three things occurred.......they won......their kids played with passion and in an attractive style to watch.....their players engaged the fan base.....

Now, I'm not saying that is the formula that must be followed...nor am I saying that some of the above has not occured at SLU ..........

biut while I agree that SLU could market its product much more effectiviely, that marketing effort becomes much easier when a team wins (and I mean at a high level)......and puts a compelling group of kids n the court that the community as a whole can learn about and interract with....and that the media will invest time to find a myriad of personal storylines.......

then RickMa and Mitchell will be as visible as Spoon and Dobbs once were.....

and fans will be jostling to find a way into every home game.....

[GoBills]

Missouri has a football progeam....they operate in a BCS conference .....they gets larger funds allocated from TV and post season appearances (but support a larer number of sports programs).......but they also play half their games mid week in a metro area of 125,000 - not 2.5 million..... mpst of its fan base is more than two hours away on a roundtrip for any home game......and they were coming off years of on an off court issues that had turned supporters away in disgust.....

I bring this up not to offer "excuses" or a rationale for the turnaround in MU home attendance, but to simply point out the programs have different marketing resources and issues to handle or market around....

MU put fans back in seats (which is different from season ticket sales), when three things occurred.......they won......their kids played with passion and in an attractive style to watch.....their players engaged the fan base.....

Now, I'm not saying that is the formula that must be followed...nor am I saying that some of the above has not occured at SLU ..........

biut while I agree that SLU could market its product much more effectiviely, that marketing effort becomes much easier when a team wins (and I mean at a high level)......and puts a compelling group of kids n the court that the community as a whole can learn about and interract with....and that the media will invest time to find a myriad of personal storylines.......

then RickMa and Mitchell will be as visible as Spoon and Dobbs once were.....

and fans will be jostling to find a way into every home game.....

I agree that the fans came back at MU primarily due to the winning. Remember, Mizzou's attendance as recently as 07-08 was where SLU's supposedly "poor" attendance was this past season. I recall that Claggett and Highmark became a lot more compelling to the local community in their junior and senior season, than their freshmen and sophomore seasons. Everybody loves a winner.

[kevinfootes]

I agree that the fans came back at MU primarily due to the winning. Remember, Mizzou's attendance as recently as 07-08 was where SLU's supposedly "poor" attendance was this past season. I recall that Claggett and Highmark became a lot more compelling to the local community in their junior and senior season, than their freshmen and sophomore seasons. Everybody loves a winner.

Seriously, the problem with your thinking is that you are 100% confident SLU will be a 25-win team in a couple of years and there will be packed houses for the likes of UMBC on Tuesdays in December while students are on break. We're all hopeful the wins will come, and that will obviously create more interest. Keep in mind, though, that some marketing effort will always be needed to make the buy games attractive. Besides XU and Dayton, the conference games aren't all that attractive either. Even if a conference opponent is having a great season, they might not even come to StL with the way the scheduling works.

We'll also be competing for dollars with a revitailzed Blues team...one that was able to improve attendance before winning and without having star players in their prime due to their marketing efforts!

[GoBills]

Seriously, the problem with your thinking is that you are 100% confident SLU will be a 25-win team in a couple of years and there will be packed houses for the likes of UMBC on Tuesdays in December while students are on break. We're all hopeful the wins will come, and that will obviously create more interest. Keep in mind, though, that some marketing effort will always be needed to make the buy games attractive. Besides XU and Dayton, the conference games aren't all that attractive either. Even if a conference opponent is having a great season, they might not even come to StL with the way the scheduling works.

We'll also be competing for dollars with a revitailzed Blues team...one that was able to improve attendance before winning and without having star players in their prime due to their marketing efforts!

When you are not insulting people, your second favorite debate strategy is to grossly exaggerate or blatently misrepresent what people say. Case in point, you say "Seriously, the problem with your thinking is that you are 100% confident SLU will be a 25-win team in a couple of years and there will be packed houses for the likes of UMBC on Tuesdays in December while students are on break."

Get real. That would be like me saying, "Seriously, the problem with your thinking is that you could care less about the product on the floor. You are 100% confident that the Bills could field a roster of walk-ons and go winless, but marketing would solve all the problems and people would be knocking down the doors to get into the Chaifetz." When Missouri's attendance was down in football and basketball, until recently, many of their supporters would often blame the media for not backing the program. Rather than taking a look at the root cause, a poor product on the field, they would blame other factors. I doubt their marketing efforts for basketball slipped so badly beginning 4 or 5 years ago which would be the source for a big drop in attendance. And I don't think a big marketing push in late January or early February caused their attendance to spike.

[kevinfootes]

When you are not insulting people, your second favorite debate strategy is to grossly exaggerate or blatently misrepresent what people say. Case in point, you say "Seriously, the problem with your thinking is that you are 100% confident SLU will be a 25-win team in a couple of years and there will be packed houses for the likes of UMBC on Tuesdays in December while students are on break."

Get real. That would be like me saying, "Seriously, the problem with your thinking is that you could care less about the product on the floor. You are 100% confident that the Bills could field a roster of walk-ons and go winless, but marketing would solve all the problems and people would be knocking down the doors to get into the Chaifetz." When Missouri's attendance was down in football and basketball, until recently, many of their supporters would often blame the media for not backing the program. Rather than taking a look at the root cause, a poor product on the field, they would blame other factors. I doubt their marketing efforts for basketball slipped so badly beginning 4 or 5 years ago which would be the source for a big drop in attendance. And I don't think a big marketing push in late January or early February caused their attendance to spike.

mizzou, mizzou, mizzou. It always comes back to mizzou for you.

Seriously, I've repeatedly stated that winning will solve most problems. You haven't acknolwedged that marketing can help with attendance. If you can't at least acknowledge that SLU has done a horrible job with marketing than I don't know what else to say. If you could please show me how SLU has done a good job marketing (without typing "mizzou") I would really apprecitate it. I'm anticipating that you'll come back with "you're rude. mizzou, mizzou, mizzou, mizzou" and not really answer, but that's okay.

I like how you pretend that you don't insult people on here.

[GoBills]

mizzou, mizzou, mizzou. It always comes back to mizzou for you.

Seriously, I've repeatedly stated that winning will solve most problems. You haven't acknolwedged that marketing can help with attendance. If you can't at least acknowledge that SLU has done a horrible job with marketing than I don't know what else to say. If you could please show me how SLU has done a good job marketing (without typing "mizzou") I would really apprecitate it. I'm anticipating that you'll come back with "you're rude. mizzou, mizzou, mizzou, mizzou" and not really answer, but that's okay.

I like how you pretend that you don't insult people on here.

I'm not sure why Mizzou touches such a nerve with you, considering that is what the original discussion was about. Also, you didn't seem to have much problem talking about them when you were making excuses for their poor attendance. You seemed to have some familiarity with MU. Remember, you said it was all the problems with the NCAA that caused their attendance problems. Back when old Norm Stewart was there, they also had several brushes with the NCAA, but it didn't affect attendance. Why? They were winning. Another college basketball team serves as a better point of comparison (albeit not perfect either) than a professional hockey team (I guess with you it is all blues, blues, blues, blues). I have acknowledged that marketing could help. In fact, this was one of my responseses from earlier when you were trying to put words in my mouth again "And nobody has disputed that marketing would not play some role"

For somebody as passionate about marketing as you are, you have provided very few, if any examples of where it has gone wrong. Personally I saw more billboards and ads in the paper the last two years than I saw many years previously. I have a business colleague who dropped his season tickets 5 or 6 years ago. Representatives from the athletic department reached out to him on more than one occasion and convinced him to get season tickets in the new arena. How many more like him were they able to bring in? Those strike me as good marketing efforts. What are your specific criticisms? How do you know it is terrible? The Bills had the 71 ranked attendance in the nation for a team ranked in the 120s. A case could be made that the attendance overachieved considering the mediocre product. Maybe good marketing played a positive role? Or maybe our fans are just absolutely incredible to turn out in these numbers in spite of terrible marketing and a mediocre product for several years in a row?

[kevinfootes]

I'm not sure why Mizzou touches such a nerve with you, considering that is what the original discussion was about. Also, you didn't seem to have much problem talking about them when you were making excuses for their poor attendance. You seemed to have some familiarity with MU. Remember, you said it was all the problems with the NCAA that caused their attendance problems. Back when old Norm Stewart was there, they also had several brushes with the NCAA, but it didn't affect attendance. Why? They were winning. Another college basketball team serves as a better point of comparison (albeit not perfect either) than a professional hockey team (I guess with you it is all blues, blues, blues, blues). I have acknowledged that marketing could help. In fact, this was one of my responseses from earlier when you were trying to put words in my mouth again "And nobody has disputed that marketing would not play some role"

For somebody as passionate about marketing as you are, you have provided very few, if any examples of where it has gone wrong. Personally I saw more billboards and ads in the paper the last two years than I saw many years previously. I have a business colleague who dropped his season tickets 5 or 6 years ago. Representatives from the athletic department reached out to him on more than one occasion and convinced him to get season tickets in the new arena. How many more like him were they able to bring in? Those strike me as good marketing efforts. What are your specific criticisms? How do you know it is terrible? The Bills had the 71 ranked attendance in the nation for a team ranked in the 120s. A case could be made that the attendance overachieved considering the mediocre product. Maybe good marketing played a positive role? Or maybe our fans are just absolutely incredible to turn out in these numbers in spite of terrible marketing and a mediocre product for several years in a row?

I never made "excuses" for mizzou...simply pointed out scandals. On the other hand, you have repeatedly made excuses for SLU's poor marketing. Calling out some lame mizzou witch hunt won't change that. You are obviously slow, so I guess I have to keep reminding you. As far as "familiarity" with mizzou goes, I'm not the one on here bragging about my high-rolling mizzou donor friend the way that you were doing.

If you want to get specific, what are the basics of marketing? Let's start with the four Ps. Obviosuly the pricing was screwed up. as no more than a few weeks into the season they started making deals and lowering prices. While I won't point to you specifically, there were several posters on here who all but guaranteed sell-out crowds with the new arena. Why didn't that happen...even for the opener in a new building? Please answer this question.

I can keep going if you like, but I'd like to see you come up with something reasonable first.

[GoBills]

I never made "excuses" for mizzou...simply pointed out scandals. On the other hand, you have repeatedly made excuses for SLU's poor marketing. Calling out some lame mizzou witch hunt won't change that. You are obviously slow, so I guess I have to keep reminding you. As far as "familiarity" with mizzou goes, I'm not the one on here bragging about my high-rolling mizzou donor friend the way that you were doing.

If you want to get specific, what are the basics of marketing? Let's start with the four Ps. Obviosuly the pricing was screwed up. as no more than a few weeks into the season they started making deals and lowering prices. While I won't point to you specifically, there were several posters on here who all but guaranteed sell-out crowds with the new arena. Why didn't that happen...even for the opener in a new building? Please answer this question.

I can keep going if you like, but I'd like to see you come up with something reasonable first.

Now you are backtracking from your excuses for Mizzou? This is the excuse you made "If you want to use the mizzou example don't leave out the fact that the building opened during a series of pretty big scandals. They also thought it was a good idea to add seats." I do have some familiarity with Mizzou which is why I think your "excuse" for their fans was way of the mark.

As for the pricing, myself, Brian and a few others talked about it, so you have added nothing new there. In fact, when we mentioned it, you seemed to label it an "excuse" for explaining poor attendance. There seems to be consensus on the pricing issue. What else ya got? Still waiting on specifics. With as much hostility as you have for the marketing, one would think that you would have a laundry list.

[kevinfootes]

Now you are backtracking from your excuses for Mizzou? This is the excuse you made "If you want to use the mizzou example don't leave out the fact that the building opened during a series of pretty big scandals. They also thought it was a good idea to add seats." I do have some familiarity with Mizzou which is why I think your "excuse" for their fans was way of the mark.

As for the pricing, myself, Brian and a few others talked about it, so you have added nothing new there. In fact, when we mentioned it, you seemed to label it an "excuse" for explaining poor attendance. There seems to be consensus on the pricing issue. What else ya got? Still waiting on specifics. With as much hostility as you have for the marketing, one would think that you would have a laundry list.

mizzou, mizzou, mizzou.

Yes, mizzou's downturn in wins happened to coincide with a new building that had more seats and a scandal. Losing games was obviously the main factor. Once again I made no excuses for mizzou fans. Period. I was questioning why SLU wasn't doing better. And I'm sorry if I can't think of a polite way to ask if you are too dense to understand that. Maybe you can get one of your high rolling mizzou buddies to explain this to you.

As far as the marketing goes, I've repeatedly said there was a poor effort in terms of promotion for this team. There has been for most of the past 30 years. There is very little effort to generate a buzz with fans or local media. What specifics do you want. Should I go game-by-game and review the promotions? Do you need things simplified to that level? How did the Cardinals draw in their first game at the new stadium? A sellout. How did the Blues draw in thier first game at Kiel? A sellout. How did SLU draw in their first game at Chaifetz? 70% capacity. Why is that? Several reasons, but not the least of which is that there was a poor effort to get the word out. There wasn't much effort to publicize open houses before the season. Midnight madness? Sorry, didn't happen.

I'll ONCE AGAIN use the example of John Davidson and the Blues. You can't possibly say that their efforts didn't help with attendance, as attendance improved before the winning came along.

Do you need more specifics in addition to those I've already laid out throughout this thread?

Here's a question for you. What has SLU done well in terms of marketing? You keep defending our marketing, but haven't given one example of something we've done well. I guess you're not required to give specifics. I'll give you one...the move to 101 FM was a good one. Maybe that can get you started.

[GoBills]

mizzou, mizzou, mizzou.

Yes, mizzou's downturn in wins happened to coincide with a new building that had more seats and a scandal. Losing games was obviously the main factor. Once again I made no excuses for mizzou fans. Period. I was questioning why SLU wasn't doing better. And I'm sorry if I can't think of a polite way to ask if you are too dense to understand that. Maybe you can get one of your high rolling mizzou buddies to explain this to you.

As far as the marketing goes, I've repeatedly said there was a poor effort in terms of promotion for this team. There has been for most of the past 30 years. There is very little effort to generate a buzz with fans or local media. What specifics do you want. Should I go game-by-game and review the promotions? Do you need things simplified to that level? How did the Cardinals draw in their first game at the new stadium? A sellout. How did the Blues draw in thier first game at Kiel? A sellout. How did SLU draw in their first game at Chaifetz? 70% capacity. Why is that? Several reasons, but not the least of which is that there was a poor effort to get the word out. There wasn't much effort to publicize open houses before the season. Midnight madness? Sorry, didn't happen.

I'll ONCE AGAIN use the example of John Davidson and the Blues. You can't possibly say that their efforts didn't help with attendance, as attendance improved before the winning came along.

Do you need more specifics in addition to those I've already laid out throughout this thread?

Here's a question for you. What has SLU done well in terms of marketing? You keep defending our marketing, but haven't given one example of something we've done well. I guess you're not required to give specifics. I'll give you one...the move to 101 FM was a good one. Maybe that can get you started.

Here you say "losing games was obviously the main factor" in the downturn in Mizzou's attendance. Fine. That was my point, so not sure why you brought up the scandal excuse earlier. Even my "high rolling" Mizzou buddy wouldn't buy the scandal excuse - haha.

What has generated buzz over the past 30 years at SLU, like it is at most places, has been winning teams. The formula is quite simple. Coach Majerus has been brought in to address that. I haven't so much defended the marketing as I don't view your percieved lack of it as the primary source of what has kept attendance below your expectations. You've asked what SLU has done well in terms of marketing? Just yesterday, I wrote "Personally I saw more billboards and ads in the paper the last two years than I saw many years previously. I have a business colleague who dropped his season tickets 5 or 6 years ago. Representatives from the athletic department reached out to him on more than one occasion and convinced him to get season tickets in the new arena. How many more like him were they able to bring in? Those strike me as good marketing efforts." (I guess you were too "dense" to notice those specifics that I mentioned. I see you have reverted back to your sophomoric ways.). Some people mentioned that there were several promotional efforts that seemed successful in attracting students - the Dayton game come to mind, I think the St. Joseph's game, too. I believe those were the blue out and white out games. Many people commented that the halftime entertainment was the best it has ever been, if you are into that kind of thing.

With the Chaifetz solving our facilities deficiencies and recruiting looking like it is on the upswing, I really hope that our program's biggest issue is now t-shirt and ball give-aways. That sure beats the not too distant past when we had to worry about having a roster with an undersized point guard who can't shoot or an undersized small forward being forced to play the power forward alongside an unathletic, lanky center, on a team with little depth.

[Clock_Tower]

Count me in as one who is still suspect as to the Mizzou program. Believe they had a good year (especially the second half) but also believe they were not one of the Top 8 teams in the country. Yes, they made it to the Elite Eight and yes they won the games they needed to win, but I will wait for another full season to see if Mike Anderson and the Tigers are for real. Instead, I believe (and might be dead wrong - and then will admit to the same) that things happened to come together for them in large part because they had a very nice mix of Senior leadership (not present next year) and young talent, played well against some not so great competition in the Big 12, they benefitted from a total collapse of the better teams in the Big 12 Tourney getting to play Baylor in the final game, and as a result, Mizzou therefore got a favorable seeding the Tournament. Once in the Tournament, they also benefitted by playing certains teams against whom they were able to matchup against more favorably. This is the same team that got blown out by Illinois at the Scrottrade and which lost by 35 or so at Fog Allen. Not ready to say they are some Top 10 program.

As to attendance, not sure the Tiger fans are fully back as many assume. Here's the facts for the first portion of the season before the conference games -- which admittedly were sellouts -- 15,601 per game.

DATE OPPONENT W/L SCORE ATTEND

------------ -------------------- --- ----- ------

11-15-08 PRAIRIE VIEW A&M W 86-65 5463

11-17-08 CHATTANOOGA W 103-75 5275

11-30-08 ORAL ROBERTS W 92-83 5229

12-02-08 ARKANSAS-PINE BLUFF W 95-41 5502

12-07-08 CALIFORNIA W 93-66 8310

12-13-08 MURRAY STATE W 75-64 8517

12-20-08 STETSON UNIVERSITY W 78-44 7409

12-27-08 SIU-EDWARDSVILLE W 107-57 6793

12-30-08 CENTENARY W 80-52 6755

01-06-09 COPPIN STATE W 88-55 7244

*01-14-09 COLORADO W 107-62 9171

*01-17-09 IOWA STATE W 77-46 12403

*01-24-09 TEXAS TECH W 97-86 13357

Again, people want to ignore basic math. If an arena has only 10,600, then it is hard to increase season ticket average attendance to make up for the lesser attended games. When your arena, though, holds 15,601, then all of those games with attendance of 5,000 and 6,000 (poor for the only major state school) can more easily be increased to level their average attendance of 9,807. By perspective, the year prior, Mizzou had only 8,060 per game -- the large difference being a large boost by going from 11,000 and 12,000 (figures higher than 10,600) per conference game to sellouts for the their conference games. When you consider that Mizzou has 20,000 students on campus, a college town where the locals have no other sports entertainment and where boosters/fans/alumni can drive in from only 1 to 2 hours away (KC, St. Louis and Springfield), then I am just not ready to praise Mizzou for their attendance because some bandwagon fans jumped on (half way thru the season for conference games -- with one of them being KU game which sells out even when Mizzou has been terrible) after the team started to win. SLU also had some conference sellouts (without near the on-court success experienced by the Tigers). If Mizzou Arena only held 10,600 per game, then their average attendance would have been more like 8,500 per game.

[Postcard]

Count me in as one who is still suspect as to the Mizzou program. Believe they had a good year (especially the second half) but also believe they were not one of the Top 8 teams in the country. Yes, they made it to the Elite Eight and yes they won the games they needed to win, but I will wait for another full season to see if Mike Anderson and the Tigers are for real. Instead, I believe (and might be dead wrong - and then will admit to the same) that things happened to come together for them in large part because they had a very nice mix of Senior leadership (not present next year) and young talent, played well against some not so great competition in the Big 12, they benefitted from a total collapse of the better teams in the Big 12 Tourney getting to play Baylor in the final game, and as a result, Mizzou therefore got a favorable seeding the Tournament. Once in the Tournament, they also benefitted by playing certains teams against whom they were able to matchup against more favorably. This is the same team that got blown out by Illinois at the Scrottrade and which lost by 35 or so at Fog Allen. Not ready to say they are some Top 10 program.

Don't forget the recruits that could have gone to the schools they played but didn't therefore making their Elite 8 run even easier. Also, I think some of their games were played on Nintendo so there is one more excuse as to why they really didn't do that great last year, blah, blah, blah.......

Who is calling them a Top 10 program?

[billiken_roy]

Don't forget the recruits that could have gone to the schools they played but didn't therefore making their Elite 8 run even easier. Also, I think some of their games were played on Nintendo so there is one more excuse as to why they really didn't do that great last year, blah, blah, blah.......

Who is calling them a Top 10 program?

yeah right you're a billiken fan.

[Postcard]

yeah right you're a billiken fan.

I am. It's a good thing that I don't need your approval to be one. There are certainly people out there that think you do more harm than good for the Billiken reputation so I wouldn't be so quick to judge.

[billiken_roy]

I am. It's a good thing that I don't need your approval to be one. There are certainly people out there that think you do more harm than good for the Billiken reputation so I wouldn't be so quick to judge.

you dont see me leaping to defend the Tiger$ at every opportunity.

while i may lack enthusiasm for the billiken basketball men's head coach, i take great offense to questioning my loyalty to the billikens. but since it comes from the likes of tiger posty, i guess i shouldnt get to worked up about it.

[Postcard]

you dont see me leaping to defend the Tiger$ at every opportunity.

while i may lack enthusiasm for the billiken basketball men's head coach, i take great offense to questioning my loyalty to the billikens. but since it comes from the likes of tiger posty, i guess i shouldnt get to worked up about it.

It's possible to be a fan of both. Perhaps the fumes from the factories in Belleville are getting to you.