2003 attendence figures

[kshoe]

http://www.ncaa.org/stats/m_basketball/att...ball_attend.pdf

We rank 49th at 9,232 per game.

[cheeseman]

CUSA actually went down - I am sure SLU helped that to happen. Our attendance was OK but disappointing for what it has been. I hate to bring this up but it is simply too obvious not to - thanks Romar for all you did. Attendance went down every year he was here and last year's situation was the result of how bare the cupboard was from him.

[Basketbill]

is that while the team struggled on the road, they eventually pleased the home crowd.....with incredibly exciting wins at home with Louisville, Tulane, Memphis etc.....that brings fans back!! I bet you will not find any fan who went to either the Louisville game or the Tulane game that would turn down a ticket next year if offered......

[Taj79]

While I might agree that 49th overall is kind of nice, let's put it into the context of "percentage of seats filled." I don't have the time to revert back to all the schools listed, but I would offer that the figures for Cincy and Dayton, if put into my context, would show that their attendance is somewhere in the upper 90's for percentage of total seats filledversus total seats available. Same for Louisville. What does Savvis hold? Over 20K. So our figures pale in my mind when you figure that over 50% of the building is empty. My main argument for a smaller, on-campus arena.

Secondly, how many times did we meet an over to make up an under? The figure quoted is the average. I am sure that the Louisville, Marquette and Cincy games drew more than the stated average. So if these drew 3K or 4K more than the average (over), there were those other games of 3K or 4K less (under) that had to be made up and accounted for to get to the average. So the average is less than 50% and we all know there were games lower than that so for the most part, we are playing to well over a half empty building. Creature comforts for fans be damned.

Finally, as many have pointed out, the question is how do you count what's there? By tickets sold or turnstiles clicked? I don't want that philosphical debate but I am willing to bet based on some comments about the crowds and fans last year, that it points more to the downside than to the upside.

I've got to believe that baseball is on to something. No longer do you see the cookie-cutter ballparks of the late 60's early 70's with the seamless dimensions, no personality and 60K seats. No more Busch, Three Rivers, the Vet, Riverfront, etc. You see them getting downsized to a little over 47K seats or so. That way, the supply cannot keep up with the demand (if you're good enough). In the pro sense, they're even selling the atmosphere that comes with going to the game as opposed to the crappy product on the field (i.e. see "Orioles, Baltimore"). The game becomes more and more of an event and the crowds reflect that enthusiasm and excitement.

That's what I want to see from Anita Court at the King Billiken Roy Dome. Heck even if you count all the seats in the Carrier Dome, Syracuse probably had a better percentage of total seats filled than we did. Great home court advantage once again.

[Taj79]

First, two statements to put all this into perspective ....

Number 1: My dad had an old sign he hung over his desk that read "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullsh*t!"

Number 2: I remember my first boss in my first job telling me "You can prove anyhting you want with statistics." Here goes ....

I did the math myself, trying to put into context my thoughts of the previous post. Some interesting tidbits ... Savvis is listed as the ninth largest collegiate arena in the US. I did not know that. The contrast is that even though the Bills finished 49th in attendance, their average works out that they played in an arena that was, on average, 46.2% filled. In contrast, the other CUSA teams listed in this top 100 played in front of arenas filled to the following: Lousiville = 101%; Marquette 83.1%; Memphis 82.6%; Cincinnati 92.5%; Charlotte 70.5%; DePaul 37.5% and East Carolina 72.8%.

Louisville was one of seven teams that played at or above 100% capacity. The others: Maryland (102.7); Oklahoma (101.5%); Arizona (100.1%) and Kansas, Michigan State and Duke, all at 100%. I find it interesting that Duke was 48% in overall attendance .. right above us. Gee ... playing at Cameron or Savvis? We are clsoer to Duke than we know. We're only one rung apart on the attendnace statistical level.

As I said, we were at 46.2% capacity. Who is below us on the list of 100? Seven teams .... Villanova and Penn State both at 45.2%; La-Lafayette at 44.3%; St. John's at 43.8%; Georgetown at 42.7; Seton Hall at 38.1% and DePaul at 35.5%. But then I figured I screwed up on at least Villanova and St. John's. I did their numbers based on seating at the First Union Center in Philly and Madison Square in NYC when I remembered that Nova plays some games on campus at the 6,500 seat Pavillion and St. John's plays some on campus at 6,008 seat Alumni Hall. So these are probably skewed some what. Same is probably true for UConn ... I didn't figure Gampel into the equation. And G-town lists McDonough as another home gym with seating at 2500. I think the last time G-town played anyone ther might have been ..... us, in the mid 80's!

But don't you find it interesting that of the six teams (I'm throwing DePaul out because they're already in the same conference with us) left we want to join up with four of them in the new Big East???? On a side note, both Dayton and Xavier, two other teams mentioned in all this conference juggling, averaged 92.5% capacity and 99.8% capacity respectively. And La-Lafayette plays its home games in a 12,800 seat behemoth ... but kudos for them for drawing 5670 a night for their games. Might not be much else to do in Lafayette, Louisiana to begin with.

My next play with the stats is to see how these attendances translated into home wins and home records. That is my main reason for wanting Anita Court at the King Billiken Roy Dome. Atmosphere and home pits have to equal more wins in my mind. But that's to come. Let me leave you with how some other teams "packed the house" capacity speaking from the list:

Wisconsin (98.8%); Illinois (92.2); UNLV (63.4); Missouri (84.1); Notre Dame (99.1); Bradley (82.8); Providence (67.6); Creighton (87.9); SIU (65.7); SMS (71.2); Butler (53.5) and Wichita State (77.6). The largest on-campus arena is the Carrier Dome with 33K; Syracuse averaged filling it to 63.4% capacity with its 20,921 average.

To me if you win, the folks will come. But youneed to maximize all the advantages available to you .... starting with a home court advantage at least.

[Basketbill]

1. so what

2. Who cares?

3. Yo have way too much time one your hands

[billiken_roy]

personally, i think it is some pretty good stuff.

i assume basketbill, 1. you are either not married with children (especially daughters like taj) or 2. you must be very busy with extremely worthwhile projects.

for those of us that are 40 somethings with the fams and the choice of the magical world of disney on sunday evenings or spending a half of hour looking up the numbers and crunching them ala taj, no big deal.

thanks taj!

[kshoe]

The team that plays in an 8,000 seat arena and sells out every game, but realistically knows it probably couldn't sell 10,000 to most games or a team that plays in a 20,000 seat arena and sells 15,000 to each game. I'll take the 15,000 team every time.

[kwyjibo]

Your analysis of Billikens playing in front the highest percentage of empty seats in both impressive and interesting. The only problem is that your conclusions do not follow at all.

The Billikens (whether playing in front of empty seats or full seats) have enjoyed one of the strongest and most enduring home court advantages of all 300+ D-I programs. Of course, this is measured by the difference in performance index at home and away (not subjective "feelings" of atmosphere). Now, had you equated statistical performance with percentage of empty seats that might have made your point (but I highly doubt it).

I realize people do enjoy the atmosphere of games in smaller arenas but that is NOT the same as saying such atmospheres provide a "home-court advantage". In fact, the fact SLU has so many seats empty and has a strong home court advantage is some evidence that there may an "empty seat advantage". (If that's the case maybe SLU can work out a cheap rent deal at the TWA Jones Dome )

Rent is also a real issue. It is possible that SLU has to pay for excess capacity in its rent deal with Savvis. I do not know the details of that deal, but it is also possible that Savvis (knowing that SLU will be using it in otherwise empty slots) gives SLU a rate comparable to a smaller arena because it is a secondary tenant.

If you like the cozy atmosphere that smaller arenas provide that is fine (I personally do as well) but do not try to make economic and performance claims of such arenas. I still think that an on-campus Arena is an unnecessary financial risk considering the age and convenience of Savvis.

[cheeseman]

jibo - you are the only one who thinks the new arena is a financial risk and not necessary. Anytime a product can be situated so that the demand exceeds it then the product always wins. A 13000 seat arena will be just fine - if the Bills get a really big game, then they can always go back to SAVIS for it or use the dome. The Mizzou game will probably never be played in the arena - it will be in one of the other two sites mentioned.

Taj - why do you call the new arena the Anita Court?

[billiken_roy]

i hope we do play the missouri game and any other big games ONLY at the new arena. if the johnny come lately bandwagon jumpers dont want to see billiken basketball all the time screw em. let them watch it on charter.

[bonwich]

I've been saying on this board almost since the first rumors surfaced that a new arena is at best a wildly speculative project. It's pleasing to see that our resident numbers-cruncher, kwyjibo, seems to agree with me.

That's not to say that I won't contribute to it (inasmuch as I can or as that would make any difference) or go to games there. However, I've said before and I'll continue to say that the *only* real justification for this arena is ego. I'm not sure where you're getting this "demand exceeds supply" hypothesis, but in the best case that refers to 15 home games, less than five percent of the total number of dates the facility can house.

Not to rehash what I've said before -- in short, that St. Louis as a total marketplace is totally overcapacitized with athletic and entertainment facilities. But my other worry, especially given the number of kids I need to put through college, is that this whole athletic-facilities thing has turned into an arms race, while at the same time that the Mizzous and SLUs of the world keep building bigger and better tens-of-millions-of-dollars jock palaces, the cost of a college education has consistently risen at two, three, five times the rate or overall inflation. (As a friend who just took his daughter to SLU orientation said to me over the weekend, in our day it was possible to hold down a job and come close to paying your tuition. That simply isn't the case any more, and the amount of debt that a lot of kids are carrying right out of school is downright scary.)

I'm reasonably confident that Biondi will secure enough of an endowment for the new facility that operating costs will, in fact, be "revenue neutral." But I'm equally confident that all of this talk of concerts and conventions and the like as a source of significant revenue is a major league fairy tale.

[davidnark]

The problem with arguments that criticize the arena project is that they assume that $40 million in donations spent on the project would otherwise be available for other projects. College basketball (and football) is the biggest connection between many universities and their alumni. For this reason, colleges often have an easier time soliciting big checks for sports facilities than they do for academic buildings. I would suspect that 75% of the arena donations would not be made for other projects.

Assuming that at least $35 million is being donated for the arena project that would not be spent be available for another project, should this money be spent on a new arena? I think it should for the following reasons:

-The arena is the critical element of revitalizing one of the most important and historic areas in the region; the revitalization of this neighborhood is key to enhancing the university's image, which, in turn, should lead to increased applications, recruitment, quality of students and faculty, etc.

-Successful college basketball programs have been proven to significantly and positively impact a university’s name recognition and applications--without a new arena, SLU will have a difficult time developing and maintaining a top basketball program

-It will provide the university with an opportunity to host large academic events, which in time should enhance the university’s academic reputation

-It will directly and indirectly (though new restaurants, bars, etc.) enhance the social opportunities for students

-It will bring alumni and local sports fans back to the campus on a regular basis

[cheeseman]

Davidnark, you have made all good points which I agree with.

Bonwich - sorry I misspoke - I really did not mean to say jibo was the only one. You are correct, there have been a handful of others who have questioned it. By in large, the vast majority of what I have read on the board supports it. While I understand your concern - I just finished getting one through college and have one with their senior year left (I feel your pain) the truth of the matter is keeping up with "jones" is something that has to happen but it needs to be done in a responsible way. A 13000 seat on campus arena is not irresponsible. In response to the St. Louis area being over capacity - I am not sure that I agree. The SAVIS and the dome is simply too big for many events. There is nothing on the IL side that falls in the 13000 seat venue. I know that there is the Family Center in St. Charles but the truth is they have had trouble drawing events because of their location. Crossing that bridge is something a lot of people do not like doing so a 13000 seat arena in midtown is an excellent location and will attract numerous events if marketed correctly.

Roy - I agree that playing Mizzou or another big game at the new arena would be the best case from an atmosphere standpoint but money talks and if Mizzou comes to St. Louis to pay then you better cash in because there is going to 20000 people or more want to see that game - both SLU and Mizzou fans combined.

I am still waiting for the Anita Court answer.

[davidnark]

nm = no message

[bonwich]

Your arguments all sound great, but by and large there isn't a whole lot of real-world evidence to back them up. The notion of sporting facilities as revitalization tools has been disproven time and again all over the country, most specifically in St. Louis. How many "bars and restaurants" have sprung up around the Savvis Center, a fabulously ornate facility hosting a wide range of sporting and entertainment events? How many are there around the Jones Dome? Or even Busch?

-The arena is the critical element of revitalizing one of the most important and historic areas in the region; the revitalization of this neighborhood is key to enhancing the university's image, which, in turn, should lead to increased applications, recruitment, quality of students and faculty, etc.

"The" critical element? Not hardly. "The" critical element in revitalizing Grand Center is small restaurant, retail and office, along with a significant permanent resident population. Those small restaurants and retail will in turn require something Grand Center has never been able to provide -- automobile and pedestrian infrastructure so that it's cheap and easy for everyday people to turn it into an all-day-and-most-of-the-night commercial district akin to the U. City Loop. (And the U. City Loop certainly did not become what it is by placing some multimillion-dollar facility there.) Unfortunately, it's quite plausible that the arena will have an opposite effect by further crowding out cheap parking in the area, much as the numerous $5 lots for the Fox and Powell have impeded bar and restaurant development in the area thus far.

The Fox, which has brought literally hundreds of thousands of people into Grand Center year-round for 15 or 20 years, has thus far failed to be able to support a single long-term medium- to high-end restaurant (in combination with Powell Hall, which brings in 2,000 more people 2-3 times a week, about 30 weeks out of the year). 15 basketball games a year is somehow going to be different?

-Successful college basketball programs have been proven to significantly and positively impact a university’s name recognition and applications--without a new arena, SLU will have a difficult time developing and maintaining a top basketball program.

I submit, without supporting data, that Harvard and Bennington (and for that matter Emory and Reed and Tufts and Wash. U. and any number of academically selective institutions without benefit of "successful college basketball") have seen their "name recognition and applications" increase at the same or faster rate as Duke and Stanford, or even Gonzaga and Creighton. (I'd also point out that SLU's freshman enrollment and overall entrance criteria have somehow managed to increase steadily for the past decade or so despite benefit of an on-campus arena or "successful college basketball program.")

At the same time, you may have read last week that our dear brethren in Columbia have been bleeding distinguished faculty at a rate much higher than the national norm (and we won't even get started on how much Mizzou raised tuition for next year). Now, some of this gets, at least on the Mizzou front, gets intermingled with state budget issues. On the other hand, I'd suggest that this whole "we need great sports to be great" argument is merely a reflection of the massive amount of money being wasted on professional sports all over the country. And if it keeps up, college sports are going to run into the same burstable economic bubble that's currently menacing pro baseball, basketball and hockey.

-It will provide the university with an opportunity to host large academic events, which in time should enhance the university’s academic reputation.

Can you name any of these "large academic events"? Who the heck holds a "large academic event" in a 13,000 seat arena? This is the same logic that once said that the Jones Dome wasn't just a football stadium -- it's actually an extension of the Convention Center. Well, sometime count how many "convention" activities are held every year in the Dome.

-It will directly and indirectly (though new restaurants, bars, etc.) enhance the social opportunities for students.

See above regarding "new restaurants and bars." In addition, there have been thousands of students, faculty and staff right there for years and years and years, and yet the surrounding neighborhood has always been woefully devoid of such support facilities.

-It will bring alumni and local sports fans back to the campus on a regular basis.

You have me there.

When it comes down to it, most of these arguments are moot, because Biondi has decided the arena is a good idea, so it's going to get built. And meanwhile, he's raising even more money for research facilities, which I'm pretty sure are more important in the long run for establishing and maintaining SLU's reputation as a *university*. And the U. continues to build endowments to support merit-based financial aid. So I'm not vehemently anti-arena; I'm just trying to make the point that most of the stated reasons for building it are well-orchestrated PR spin.

[NashvilleBilliken]

A few years ago, I would have agreed that hoping for bars and restaurants to be successful in the midtown area was impossible. However, times are changing. With the newly restored Coronado and the Continental building being renovated, along with new lofts near the Drake, there are potentially a large amount of tenants moving to the area. These new apartments are very nice and will therefore bring in people who have some money to spend. With the arena being built, it will undoubtedly clean up the area. The Fox is very nice, but go a block in either direction and some will fear for there lives. Now that SLU will own the property, there will be constant security and well lit areas. Now, add a few bars and a nice restaurant and before you know it the place will be hopping...

[StLouBlue]

I mostly agree with you on your points, but I do think there are reasons beyond "Biondi wants it" for why it is being built. I would guess some of these reasons are:

1. NBA scare. While many think it is not likely the NBA will be coming to Saint Louis, if it ever did show up SLU would have a very hard time getting dates. The time to plan for this is now not when it is announced the NBA is here or coming. Fundraising and luxury box sales become much harder if it was suddenly announced an NBA team was coming here. Which leads to the next point...

2. Why now. Things have come together to make this a good time to build. TIF money for support structure(parking garages), low cost of land to build on, knowing you can raise the money to get it done and have enough fan base to support new arena. If they decide to wait some of these things may change making the new arena less likely or at least more out of pocket for SLU.

3. New arena will provide more money to SLU. I feel relatively sure that SLU will make money on the arena. My guess is at worst it will be revenue neutral, but much more likely making money. I don't think the Jesuits would do this if they weren't going to make money on it. I guess they will have luxury boxes that will be sold as well as the regular season ticket holders.

4. SLU becomes even more important to St Louis City. SLU already is a big player in Mid-town, the new arena will only increase SLU's importance. While I am not sure what this actually brings in, other than maybe a little more control over the develop in the Mid-town area, the prestige is always there and could help whenever a political issue comes around.

These are the reasons for why I see it being built. I am lukewarm at this point, because it is not an immediate need, but like I stated earlier, waiting for it to be an immediate need could make it too late.

[davidnark]

Joe,

I am focusing on your argument that the new arena is not the centerpiece for the Grand Center redevelopment because we could go round and round on the other arguments.

I will concede that a new athletic facility in an existing developed area is not likely to cause significant redevelopment activity. The Saviss Center, for example, merely replaced existing athletic and cultural facilities. The Edward Jones Dome expanded an existing convention facility (although I am certain that the Washington Ave. Drury Hotel, Planet Hollywood, and the new hotel at the entrance to the landing certainly considered the dome's location when planning development). If, however, a new athletic facility is constructed in a really blighted area (like the Memphis Ballpark, the Indianapolis Ballpark, Camden Yards, Pac Bell, etc.), then the facility will typically spurn new development and urban revitalization.

I know you are familiar with the planned arena site. It is a hideous collection of run-down warehouses, unkempt lots, and destroyed structures. The arena project will single-handedly convert an 8+ square block area of blight into a brand new college campus. For these reasons, the project is distinguishable from the dome and the savvis center. In addition, the university has gone public with its intention to build housing, entertainment, etc. in connection with the project. We may be waiting decades for new shops to restore this eight block area; the arena project can accomplish the same thing in 24 months and can spurn redevelopment of neighboring blocks. Look at the effect the Pageant—also an entertainment venue—has had on redeveloping the city side of the loop. For these reasons, I believe that the arena will revitalize this area in grand center by (a) bringing outsiders and students to the area ( destroying the current psychological barrier hindering the area, and © creating landscaping and infrastructure that will facilitate broader redevelopment.

[davidnark]

One more thought. I have the impression that you are an urbanite of sorts (or at least appreciate the charm and culture provided in an urban setting). Aren't you glad to see TIF finally used for urban revitalization projects--their intended use--rather than redevelopments in Ballwin and Des Peres?

[Lobo]

Fr. Biondi is a leader - one who can communicate his visions and get other to believe and support. So far his track record is very good. I just don't see any major downsides to the proposed arena and development of the surounding area. It has to be a win-win situation for both SLU and St. Louis

Who knows what the future holds... maybe SLU will field a football team again! And... of course we will need a stadium (40,000 seats)just east of the arena.

[Basketbill]

Roy my point is that one can massage figures until the cows come home, but the fact remains that fan interest will come back when it is fun to go to the games agains. The team made it fun in the end of the season, but the attendance was still down fromlast year why?? You can't give away season tickets to some games, so who wants to go buy the walk up tickets.

Does it mean anything that Syracuse drew so well, is that why they won the natinal championship. Did Louisville win because the stadium was full?

Does Slu not have good fans because half the seats are empty. Should Depaul be jumping up and down because they had the bigegest increase in fans, or should they be crying because they were not able to draw as much as 1% of the surrounding population.

So my point was So what? What exactly are we to make of this.

perhaps the who cares was over the top and I apologize Taj. As for time I have plenty to do with four kids under seven.

[Quality Is Job 1]

>Who knows what the future holds... maybe SLU will field a

>football team again! And... of course we will need a stadium

>(40,000 seats)just east of the arena.

:7

[bonwich]

I think I was unclear in necessary and sufficient conditions regarding our good Father. I didn't mean to imply that it's being built only because Biondi wants it; rather, because Biondi has thrown his weight behind it, it will be built.

The only counterargument I'd have with you is on your point #3, and for that, I'd note that both the Savvis Center and the Jones Dome lose money, so it seems highly unlikely that a SLU arena would make money *unless* it were subsidized with a huge endowment, in which case it wouldn't truly *make* money in a classical accounting sense. I continue to worry about all these grandiose claims of "event hosting," because there are more than enough concert venues in town, and short of reviving the hockey program, I'm just not seeing what else they're going to put in there. (Not to mention that Grand Center's Executive Director is Vince Schoemehl, who gave St. Louis such visionary and successful projects as the Gateway Mall, St. Louis Centre and Union Station.)

But as I've said, the thing is definitely going to be built, so now it's up to us to do our part to make it work.

[kwyjibo]

I do not want to debate urban planning here. I hope that SLU is a part of a diverse and vibrant neighborhood. I am sure the arena will have many indirect economic effects (but note that they are not captured by SLU directly).

Unfortunately, the fallacies of boosterism prevent you from looking at both sides of the balance sheet. Anyway, as I have said before there are undoubtedly people looking at this more objectively than you and I; we both want them to make a good decision for SLU.

While I won't go point for point on development issues (let's just say I think the basics like jobs, education, infrastucture and housing need to lead development; not "big box" schemes and tax breaks), I will reiterate some real concerns for basketball and other sports. If this arena is run like many other colleges its profits/losses will be tied directly into the athletic department.

If it is able to turn a profit and the Billikens are able to sustain a 10-year plus ride everything is great and we can all be happy. But what I am concerned with is *risk* and a completely unnecessary one as long as Savvis exists (even if we were a "third tennant" I am sure we could work out a favorable rent).

IF the Billikens hit a bad patch or C-USA breaks up or some the basketball demand changes due to NBA or other factor or the alternate revenue side of the arena goes south . . . then the Bills sports have to make changes in order to accomodate them. Most athletic departments deal with financial problems by cutting back on staff (impacts quality of basketball program) or cutting minor sports (I don't think SLU has much to cut here but as a former minor sport athlete I DO NOT want to see these harmed). It also may mean that SLU may have to pull the occasional UNC-Ashville thing and go rent themselves out to bigger programs as a buy. This will hurt our RPI if we have to play too many tough games on the road.

The alternate revenue side (i.e., events and concerts--i'll spare you the ridicule of "large academic events") is the weakest part of the whole new arena proposal. It is just not that the market is difficult to predict; it is also true that bigger promoters are tied to certain venues (like Savvis) and they are very monopolistic in their business practices. It may be possible for SLU to get a professional event promotion team but then they usually take so much out that SLU has very little chance to make money (and with a fixed contract in place a risk of losing every year). Hopefully, SLU will get a good team together but with so many venues close by someone has to lose.