Jump to content

Great opportunity for SLU


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 104
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I certainly believe that there is a relatively fixed amount of dollars and to a lesser extent time that any community will spend on entertainment (sports, movies, restaraunts, theater, etc.) When one provider becomes more successful it, at the margin, pushes dollars away from the others. It is certainly more direct if the options directly overlap on the calendar, but I do believe if people go to fewer Cardinals games during the regular season and don't spend an arm and a leg on post-season tickets in October, they'll have more money to spend in November - February. Much of that will go to the Blues or a nice dinner, but some of that will make its way to Chaifetz. 

It shouldn't be lost on people that schools like Creighton and Dayton have much better fan support than SLU. To me, the biggest reason for that is there is nothing else to do, sports wise, in those towns. College basketball is it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, kshoe said:

I certainly believe that there is a relatively fixed amount of dollars and to a lesser extent time that any community will spend on entertainment (sports, movies, restaraunts, theater, etc.) When one provider becomes more successful it, at the margin, pushes dollars away from the others. It is certainly more direct if the options directly overlap on the calendar, but I do believe if people go to fewer Cardinals games during the regular season and don't spend an arm and a leg on post-season tickets in October, they'll have more money to spend in November - February. Much of that will go to the Blues or a nice dinner, but some of that will make its way to Chaifetz. 

It shouldn't be lost on people that schools like Creighton and Dayton have much better fan support than SLU. To me, the biggest reason for that is there is nothing else to do, sports wise, in those towns. College basketball is it.

Great points. Although I'm very surprised at the attendance at Kiel/Savvis/Scottrade/TDAmeritrade Center thus far. I was certain that with the Blues making it to the 3rd round this past spring, the Rams departure, and the Cardinals unsuccessful playoff push, the impact on attendance would be immediate. The Blues currently rank 8th in attendance and have averaged a 98% capacity over their first 5 games. That's certainly nothing to laugh at, however, the NHL measures attendance by tickets sold and not butts through the turnstiles (at least that is what I have read - maybe that's not true?). With no football and no playoff baseball, I would have bet money on the first 5 games being completely sold out. Top 10 in attendance is still impressive and I think they will remain in the top 10 all year (which would be better than last year).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Slu let the dogs out? said:

Great points. Although I'm very surprised at the attendance at Kiel/Savvis/Scottrade/TDAmeritrade Center thus far. I was certain that with the Blues making it to the 3rd round this past spring, the Rams departure, and the Cardinals unsuccessful playoff push, the impact on attendance would be immediate. The Blues currently rank 8th in attendance and have averaged a 98% capacity over their first 5 games. That's certainly nothing to laugh at, however, the NHL measures attendance by tickets sold and not butts through the turnstiles (at least that is what I have read - maybe that's not true?). With no football and no playoff baseball, I would have bet money on the first 5 games being completely sold out. Top 10 in attendance is still impressive and I think they will remain in the top 10 all year (which would be better than last year).

You are a tough grader if you are disappointed with 98% capacity for October hockey games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kshoe said:

I certainly believe that there is a relatively fixed amount of dollars and to a lesser extent time that any community will spend on entertainment (sports, movies, restaraunts, theater, etc.) When one provider becomes more successful it, at the margin, pushes dollars away from the others. It is certainly more direct if the options directly overlap on the calendar, but I do believe if people go to fewer Cardinals games during the regular season and don't spend an arm and a leg on post-season tickets in October, they'll have more money to spend in November - February. Much of that will go to the Blues or a nice dinner, but some of that will make its way to Chaifetz. 

It shouldn't be lost on people that schools like Creighton and Dayton have much better fan support than SLU. To me, the biggest reason for that is there is nothing else to do, sports wise, in those towns. College basketball is it.

Pie charts please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, kshoe said:

You are a tough grader if you are disappointed with 98% capacity for October hockey games.

Ha, I had a feeling I'd get this response :)

I am not disappointed with their attendance thus far, just a bit surprised. For the first time in over 20 years, the Blues are not competing with the Rams and/or  Cardinals playoff baseball for time and money from sports fans. This, in addition to the Blues best playoff push in 15 years, I just thought we'd see packed houses in the first 5 games. Again, I think these factors ultimately help the Blues this year and 98% is fantastic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kshoe said:

I certainly believe that there is a relatively fixed amount of dollars and to a lesser extent time that any community will spend on entertainment (sports, movies, restaraunts, theater, etc.) When one provider becomes more successful it, at the margin, pushes dollars away from the others. It is certainly more direct if the options directly overlap on the calendar, but I do believe if people go to fewer Cardinals games during the regular season and don't spend an arm and a leg on post-season tickets in October, they'll have more money to spend in November - February.

The first point is well established. But the studies I've seen are not at all clear on the assumption that unpsent entertainment dollars will "carry over" from one season to another in the first place or that college sports is more likely to capture any of the carry over from pro sports than any other type of entertainment.

Of course, the bigger problem here is that even in "down" years, the Cardinals are a huge draw and simply on a different level from Billiken basketball. Also, the assumption in this thread that the Cardinals are entering some kind of a Dark Age isn't well supported by reality. I know 86 wins is a disappointment under the new reality of the last 20 years, but that hardly means a long-term, ground up rebuilding project is necessary. The DeWitt/Mozeliak group is notoriously against that type of strategy, has been very successful while avoiding that strategy, and maybe most importantly of all that type of plan is less necessary than ever for a profitable franchise now that there are 10 playoff spots to fight for every year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Slu let the dogs out? said:

Ha, I had a feeling I'd get this response :)

I am not disappointed with their attendance thus far, just a bit surprised. For the first time in over 20 years, the Blues are not competing with the Rams and/or  Cardinals playoff baseball for time and money from sports fans. This, in addition to the Blues best playoff push in 15 years, I just thought we'd see packed houses in the first 5 games. Again, I think these factors ultimately help the Blues this year and 98% is fantastic.

Just an impression here (no data to back it up), but Blues fans seem like kind of a niche market of diehards. You're either really into Blues hockey and the type of fan who shows up year in and year out or you just don't care all that much regardless of whatever else is going on. I wouldn't expect NFL/no NFL to make a huge difference when you have a fan base like that. And Billiken basketball seems similar. We saw more casual sports fan interest when Shaka or Stevens or even Romar came to town during the three year tourney run, but not as much as everyone on here would have liked or hoped for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, hsmith19 said:

The first point is well established. But the studies I've seen are not at all clear on the assumption that unpsent entertainment dollars will "carry over" from one season to another in the first place or that college sports is more likely to capture any of the carry over from pro sports than any other type of entertainment.

Of course, the bigger problem here is that even in "down" years, the Cardinals are a huge draw and simply on a different level from Billiken basketball. Also, the assumption in this thread that the Cardinals are entering some kind of a Dark Age isn't well supported by reality. I know 86 wins is a disappointment under the new reality of the last 20 years, but that hardly means a long-term, ground up rebuilding project is necessary. The DeWitt/Mozeliak group is notoriously against that type of strategy, has been very successful while avoiding that strategy, and maybe most importantly of all that type of plan is less necessary than ever for a profitable franchise now that there are 10 playoff spots to fight for every year.

Again, I'm not suggesting that Cardinals support will suddenly drop. I am also not suggesting that SLU will rival the Cardinals in popularity. Won't happen. What I am saying, is that Cardinals impressive run from 2004-2013 (where we saw multiple WS appearances, WS wins, playoff births, and absolute NL Central dominance) is likely over. Actually, I take that back...it IS over. Yes, fans will still file through the gates at Busch. Yes, the Cardinals will still compete for a playoff spot this year. Yes, the Cardinals will still receive most of the media attention this off season, BUT....Let's just keep in mind, from 1999-2003, the Rams were the hottest ticket in town, not the Cardinals. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is 2016 any more of an "over" moment than 2007 or 2008 or 2010 were? In 2007, they actually had a losing record and did the closest thing to a rebuild they've done since the Brewery owned the team. They had a winning record the very next year and went back to the playoffs the year after that. This year they had a chance at a playoff spot until the very last day of the season. It wasn't anywhere near as bad as '07 in terms of the wins and losses or in terms of roster churn.

Even years later it's tough to draw these lines between "eras" in baseball, and here people are drawing one before it even happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Slu let the dogs out? said:

....Let's just keep in mind, from 1999-2003, the Rams were the hottest ticket in town, not the Cardinals. 

Over the winter they were. The Cardinals' attendance didn't suffer at all during that period and they broke ground on a new stadium. The Cardinals certainly didn't lose any ground financially or in terms of support just because the Rams were also doing well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, hsmith19 said:

Over the winter they were. The Cardinals' attendance didn't suffer at all during that period and they broke ground on a new stadium. The Cardinals certainly didn't lose any ground financially or in terms of support just because the Rams were also doing well.

Again, I'm not sure why you keep bringing up attendance and support. The Cardinals, by the way, averaged in the 71-77% capacity in the early 2000s. My point, once again, is not about attendance or support. I have almost zero memories of attending Cardinals games between 1999-2003 (when I was my later teens/early 20s). I have dozens and dozens of distinct memories of going to Rams games and the Rams being a part of my life at that time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, hsmith19 said:

How is 2016 any more of an "over" moment than 2007 or 2008 or 2010 were? In 2007, they actually had a losing record and did the closest thing to a rebuild they've done since the Brewery owned the team. They had a winning record the very next year and went back to the playoffs the year after that. This year they had a chance at a playoff spot until the very last day of the season. It wasn't anywhere near as bad as '07 in terms of the wins and losses or in terms of roster churn.

Even years later it's tough to draw these lines between "eras" in baseball, and here people are drawing one before it even happens.

Well, if you're keeping tabs, this is the fist time in 26 years a team in the Cardinals division won the WS. What dominant teams were the Cardinals competing with in the NL Central in 2007? This isn't a 1 and done fluke for the Cubs. This is the beginning of a potential dynasty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, hsmith19 said:

How is 2016 any more of an "over" moment than 2007 or 2008 or 2010 were? In 2007, they actually had a losing record and did the closest thing to a rebuild they've done since the Brewery owned the team. They had a winning record the very next year and went back to the playoffs the year after that. This year they had a chance at a playoff spot until the very last day of the season. It wasn't anywhere near as bad as '07 in terms of the wins and losses or in terms of roster churn.

Even years later it's tough to draw these lines between "eras" in baseball, and here people are drawing one before it even happens.

One of the biggest "it's over" moments for the Cards was the 2003 season. The Cards were picked as a distant 3rd to the dominant Cubs and Astros in 2004. We all saw how that worked out. I agree the initial premise that somehow the Cards are done is a deeply flawed premise.

That being said, I also believe its a flawed premise to say that if the Cards didn't exist the Billikens wouldn't be enormously more popular here. Just think about cities like Louisville, Memphis, Omaha, Dayton, etc. and ask why they have such enormous support from their fans. It's the lack of pro sports alternatives to draw eyes and dollars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, let me present a scenario. St. Louis loses a football team.  A short time later, SLU hires a new coach that brings a lot of excitement to the program.  He starts recruiting some top local kids and combines them with recruits from around the country.  I'm not describing the Rams leaving and SLU hiring Ford, even though it sounds very familiar.  I'm talking about the football Cardinals leaving and SLU hiring Charlie Spoonhour.

To answer "SLU Let the Dogs Out's" question, here is what happened in the 1990s after the football Cardinals left in the late 80s. [the numbers given on the NCAA website only state attendance per year, not per season.  Not sure what exactly that means]

SLU 1992 average attendance - 7,697 (#64 in the nation)

SLU 1993 average attendance - 8,591 (#51 in the nation)

SLU 1994 average attendance - 13,008 (#24 in the nation)

SLU 1995 average attendance - 17,714 (#7 in the nation)

SLU 1996 average attendance - 16,986 (#7 in the nation)

I've always been of the opinion that St. Louis has room to support the three teams.  The Cardinals will always be one.  Then there's always a team that catches St. Louis's attention for several years.  The third team will typically get average support.

Over the years, that second team that gets great support in addition to the baseball Cardinals has changed.  It has been the Blues, the Rams, SLU Basketball, the Steamers.  If Ford starts putting together winning seasons with local talent, SLU will be that second favorite team in STL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Slu let the dogs out? said:

Well, if you're keeping tabs, this is the fist time in 26 years a team in the Cardinals division won the WS. What dominant teams were the Cardinals competing with in the NL Central in 2007? This isn't a 1 and done fluke for the Cubs. This is the beginning of a potential dynasty.

Are you suggesting that if somehow the Astros has won the World Series in 2005 instead of the White Sox that the Cardinals would have been done and 2006-2015 wouldn't have happened?

 

Try not to live in the moment so much guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, hsmith19 said:

Just an impression here (no data to back it up), but Blues fans seem like kind of a niche market of diehards. You're either really into Blues hockey and the type of fan who shows up year in and year out or you just don't care all that much regardless of whatever else is going on. I wouldn't expect NFL/no NFL to make a huge difference when you have a fan base like that. And Billiken basketball seems similar. We saw more casual sports fan interest when Shaka or Stevens or even Romar came to town during the three year tourney run, but not as much as everyone on here would have liked or hoped for.

I tend to agree with you here. I am a bit surprised at how easily many St. Louisans (including myself and several friends) were able to completely stop watching the NFL. I figured, and this is probably naive, that if you are able to turn it off for the NFL so quickly, you could turn it on just as easily for the NHL. The Blues did a tremendous job gathering civic support and harnessing civic pride shortly after the Rams left. I'm hoping that some people that weren't necessarily fans of the NHL before would give it a shot. At least in the interim, as support for the city but hopefully grow to love the sport. I know, a bit of a reach!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, kshoe said:

Are you suggesting that if somehow the Astros has won the World Series in 2005 instead of the White Sox that the Cardinals would have been done and 2006-2015 wouldn't have happened?

That is not what I'm suggesting and I think you know that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Slu let the dogs out? said:

That is not what I'm suggesting and I think you know that. 

Let's assume you are right and the Cubs are going to go on a run similar to what the Yankees did from 1996-2000. 4 championships. I personally doubt they'll do that but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Does that make us the Red-Sox?

In an era when it was twice as difficult to make the playoffs as a wild card, the Sox still made it to the playoffs in 2 of those 4 years. If making it to the playoffs means you are done, then really the Cards have been done since 2011 and we just didn't know it yet.

Let me guess, you are a Cubs fan?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Slu let the dogs out? said:

Again, I'm not sure why you keep bringing up attendance and support. The Cardinals, by the way, averaged in the 71-77% capacity in the early 2000s. My point, once again, is not about attendance or support. I have almost zero memories of attending Cardinals games between 1999-2003 (when I was my later teens/early 20s). I have dozens and dozens of distinct memories of going to Rams games and the Rams being a part of my life at that time. 

So are we discussing the environment for attendance/support for SLU athletics or just sharing personal anecdotes about what teams we liked and when? If it's the latter, sorry I interrupted. Carry on...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, kshoe said:

That being said, I also believe its a flawed premise to say that if the Cards didn't exist the Billikens wouldn't be enormously more popular here. Just think about cities like Louisville, Memphis, Omaha, Dayton, etc. and ask why they have such enormous support from their fans. It's the lack of pro sports alternatives to draw eyes and dollars.

I definitely agree with that. My point is just the flip side of what you're saying--the Cardinals do exist here, and I think rumors of their demise are being just a tad exaggerated..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, cgeldmacher said:

So, let me present a scenario. St. Louis loses a football team.  A short time later, SLU hires a new coach that brings a lot of excitement to the program.  He starts recruiting some top local kids and combines them with recruits from around the country.  I'm not describing the Rams leaving and SLU hiring Ford, even though it sounds very familiar.  I'm talking about the football Cardinals leaving and SLU hiring Charlie Spoonhour.

To answer "SLU Let the Dogs Out's" question, here is what happened in the 1990s after the football Cardinals left in the late 80s. [the numbers given on the NCAA website only state attendance per year, not per season.  Not sure what exactly that means]

SLU 1992 average attendance - 7,697 (#64 in the nation)

SLU 1993 average attendance - 8,591 (#51 in the nation)

SLU 1994 average attendance - 13,008 (#24 in the nation)

SLU 1995 average attendance - 17,714 (#7 in the nation)

SLU 1996 average attendance - 16,986 (#7 in the nation)

I've always been of the opinion that St. Louis has room to support the three teams.  The Cardinals will always be one.  Then there's always a team that catches St. Louis's attention for several years.  The third team will typically get average support.

Over the years, that second team that gets great support in addition to the baseball Cardinals has changed.  It has been the Blues, the Rams, SLU Basketball, the Steamers.  If Ford starts putting together winning seasons with local talent, SLU will be that second favorite team in STL.

The only problem with this line of reasoning is that the Billikens got really good and attendance spiked right as the NFL was coming back--the push to get the Dome built, the failed Stallions bid, the Frontiere announcement. The Spoonhour peak did not coincide with the years between the Cardinals and Rams. Most of the years without football ('88-'94) were pretty dark ones for the Billikens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, kshoe said:

Let's assume you are right and the Cubs are going to go on a run similar to what the Yankees did from 1996-2000. 4 championships. I personally doubt they'll do that but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Does that make us the Red-Sox?

In an era when it was twice as difficult to make the playoffs as a wild card, the Sox still made it to the playoffs in 2 of those 4 years. If making it to the playoffs means you are done, then really the Cards have been done since 2011 and we just didn't know it yet.

Let me guess, you are a Cubs fan?

I've been a Cardinals fan all of my life. Flew in from California in 2006 to attend  WS-clinching game 5. I will admit that Cardinals fans get on my nerves, where this self-righteous attitude is merely a mask for the intense insecurity they possess (BFIB!).

I'm not sure why you do so much assuming. I guess I'm not surprised that a thread that was intended to show excitement and gauge fellow SLU fan's hopes for the future has turned into an argument about the Cardinals. I've now stated several times that all I am saying is that the Cardinals run of NL Central dominance is over (for now). I've responded several times stating that I still think the Cardinals have a shot at the playoffs every year. I've also stated that this will not impact attendance at Busch. I've also stated that I don't believe that SLU will ever replace the Cardinals as the most popular team in St. Louis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, hsmith19 said:

I definitely agree with that. My point is just the flip side of what you're saying--the Cardinals do exist here, and I think rumors of their demise are being just a tad exaggerated..

Similarly, jumping to the conclusion that I'm implying the Cardinals are now facing their demise because they are no longer the best team in the NL Central is a bit of an exaggeration. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Slu let the dogs out? said:

I've been a Cardinals fan all of my life. Flew in from California in 2006 to attend  WS-clinching game 5. I will admit that Cardinals fans get on my nerves, where this self-righteous attitude is merely a mask for the intense insecurity they possess (BFIB!).

I'm not sure why you do so much assuming. I guess I'm not surprised that a thread that was intended to show excitement and gauge fellow SLU fan's hopes for the future has turned into an argument about the Cardinals. I've now stated several times that all I am saying is that the Cardinals run of NL Central dominance is over (for now). I've responded several times stating that I still think the Cardinals have a shot at the playoffs every year. I've also stated that this will not impact attendance at Busch. I've also stated that I don't believe that SLU will ever replace the Cardinals as the most popular team in St. Louis.

BFIB is more a media thing than an actual fan thing, but whatever.

I think you have your conclusion; if the Cards have a shot at the playoffs every year and attendance doesn't suffer, then it will have no effect on SLU.

 

By the way this last post of yours is a far cry from the original posts that said:

" the increasing likelihood that the Cardinals will have to completely overhaul their roster over the next 3-5 years" and  "but it's going to be a long couple of years for the Cardinals (we clearly have different opinions on this)"

Now you just don't believe we will be dominant and that attendance will be fine...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...