Arena Updates?

[Rawls]

Everyone who truly, sincerely wanted to go to the game, went. Save for a few on both sides who had Thanksgiving plans. I directed a MU fan to the ticketmaster site, I believe it's in the Marquette section of Other Teams. If some "gave up" it's because the game was simply not that important to them. Milwaukee's lack of a sizable fan base is something that's been well-documented; that dead horse has been beaten so much it's no longer recognizable.

The last time Madison came in, they drew just over 10,000 fans including many from 90 miles west. The MU-MKE battle drew about 7100.

Based on the smack of some MU fans who visit this board, it was expected that we'd see another Madison-size crowd. Those individuals were wrong, no matter the excuse. As far as invading DePaul goes, congrats, I mean you can count the amount of MU alumni in Chicago on one hand right?

[Rawls]

Back on topic, I voted for other. Give it a test run so that the staff can get a feel for what to expect before a full crowd comes to town.

[xtownfan]

Sept 15, 2011 22:02:33 GMT -6 Rawls said:

Everyone who truly, sincerely wanted to go to the game, went. Save for a few on both sides who had Thanksgiving plans. I directed a MU fan to the ticketmaster site, I believe it's in the Marquette section of Other Teams. If some "gave up" it's because the game was simply not that important to them. Milwaukee's lack of a sizable fan base is something that's been well-documented; that dead horse has been beaten so much it's no longer recognizable.

The last time Madison came in, they drew just over 10,000 fans including many from 90 miles west. The MU-MKE battle drew about 7100.

Based on the smack of some MU fans who visit this board, it was expected that we'd see another Madison-size crowd. Those individuals were wrong, no matter the excuse. As far as invading DePaul goes, congrats, I mean you can count the amount of MU alumni in Chicago on one hand right?

Did those fans from Madison have to buy 4-packs? Believe it or not, that had a big effect on attendance. Lots of Marquette fans tried to get them about the time they got their season tickets. Single games were not available then. It would also have helped if the game was not held Thanksgiving weekend. Of those crowds Marquette draws to DePaul, about 1000 or so are students who bus down there. Had they been on campus, Marquette would likely have drawn at least 1000 or so. More than that show up regularly for women's games. Lots of Milwaukee fans make the trip as well, and as you note, Marquette has plenty of Chicago alumni, but probably fewer than Milwaukee alumni.

In any case, 3000 or so is a more than respectable draw for a road game, even if it is just across the street, as people have to go through the hassle of dealing with somebody else's athletic department. But the big point was that UWM fans did not sell the place out. So let's assume Marquette would have brought an extra 3000 or so. Would you really prefer a crowd made up of two-thirds visiting fans?

[PantherU]

Actually xtown, the four-pack idea came to be with the 2008 Madison game. There's a fan who cheers for Milwaukee because we're "one of the home teams," the casual fan who doesn't go to the arena and cheers for all three of us - I'm not sure about GB - whenever we're on the tube. If they do go to a game, they're more likely to go to MU games because of many factors, from knowledge of when the games are (it's like a puzzle for the casual fan to find out about us) but mainly because Marquette is the bigger name, the better team most years, and after January 1st has the better opponents in Bradley Center.

The four-packs came to be in 2008 because our ticket office knew there would be a big hullabaloo that Madison was in town - you know first-hand how every time they show up at the BC it's a sell-out. We didn't sell it out, but they accomplished two things - keeping the majority Milwaukee fans and selling a sh*t-ton of four-packs to Badger fans. That succeeded - if you look, you'll see the four-pack games from that year sat much more fans than the ones that weren't.

[Pounce Needs Pals]

It was 2007 and it was a 5 pack in that season. Single game tickets didn't go on sale untill 24 or 48 hours before that game.

[xtownfan]

Sept 16, 2011 13:04:43 GMT -6 PantherU said:

Actually xtown, the four-pack idea came to be with the 2008 Madison game. There's a fan who cheers for Milwaukee because we're "one of the home teams," the casual fan who doesn't go to the arena and cheers for all three of us - I'm not sure about GB - whenever we're on the tube. If they do go to a game, they're more likely to go to MU games because of many factors, from knowledge of when the games are (it's like a puzzle for the casual fan to find out about us) but mainly because Marquette is the bigger name, the better team most years, and after January 1st has the better opponents in Bradley Center.

The four-packs came to be in 2008 because our ticket office knew there would be a big hullabaloo that Madison was in town - you know first-hand how every time they show up at the BC it's a sell-out. We didn't sell it out, but they accomplished two things - keeping the majority Milwaukee fans and selling a sh*t-ton of four-packs to Badger fans. That succeeded - if you look, you'll see the four-pack games from that year sat much more fans than the ones that weren't.

Again, I do not question the strategy, especially since UW fans could buy up an arena even faster than Marquette fans. And Marquette did do the same thing the first year the series resumed between the teams, though it has not found it necessary or useful to do so since. But it was definitely a factor in depressing ticket sales to Marquette fans last year.

But the point remains. The series should stand or fall on its merits, and teams should be free to determine their schedule based on their best interests. Last year, Buzz Williams spoke about finding the game attractive for RPI reasons, since it was a road game that did not require any actual travel. Great. That is a result of the changes a couple years ago to the RPI formula to make road games more valuable and make the formula more fair to smaller teams. But UWM fans (and frankly, lots of UW fans who just love to ridicule Marquette) have been calling for games at UWM since long before that rule was changed, when UWM wasn't drawing flies and there was no imaginable benefit to Marquette to play a game at UWM, and a huge cost to doing so.

If MU and UW want to schedule the other teams because it is good for RPI, or because it is good public relations and they can afford it, or for whatever reason, great. But if they don't, they don't. Not because "it just makes sense," because often, it doesn't. Not because fans throughout the state or even the local area are clamoring for the game. They are not. Not because it follows "the code of the playground" to take on all comers at all times, not because "it is good for basketball in the state" to build the popularity and profile of the smaller teams. If the series makes sense for both teams on whatever terms, then do it. But don't go on and on about the hundreds of thousands of fans who are dying to see this game when you can't get 10,000 to show up on a Saturday night.

[PantherU]

I think we've reached some kind of shaky agreement here, but a big chunk of your argument is going against stuff we were saying years ago and aren't saying anymore.

Steve Cottingham has been on the record stating that he was searching for a 2-for-1 rolling contract when this one concludes. Now that he's gone, I wonder if that thought continues. I'm assuming it will since the Green Bay 2-for-1 contract hasn't been ended by MU.

[xtownfan]

Sept 16, 2011 16:54:23 GMT -6 PantherU said:

I think we've reached some kind of shaky agreement here, but a big chunk of your argument is going against stuff we were saying years ago and aren't saying anymore.

Steve Cottingham has been on the record stating that he was searching for a 2-for-1 rolling contract when this one concludes. Now that he's gone, I wonder if that thought continues. I'm assuming it will since the Green Bay 2-for-1 contract hasn't been ended by MU.

Of course, Marquette is searching for an AD, and will be for the next year. In the meantime, I do not anticipate any changes in the GB contract. I do not know to what extent the GB contract came about because the coach was a former Marquette assistant, and the current coach and assistant are former Marquette players. That sure doesn't hurt.

Hard to predict what is going to be done in the future. Since the change in the rules about exhibition games, Marquette has gone from playing two exhibition games for which it sold tickets, to playing one and a closed scrimmage to two closed scrimmages. Buzz Williams has made it clear he much prefers the closed scrimmages, but perhaps the loss of income means more buy games and fewer non-conference road games. The conference shuffle might mean more conference games. There may be more or less television revenue available. So it is hard to tell what will make financial sense, particularly when I do not claim any inside information.

[PantherU]

It also helps make UW look bad if the Badgers are demanding 4-for-1s and MU gives 2-for-1s.

[Pounce Needs Pals]

xtownfan- There is no loss of income for MU because they charge the same price for season-tickets this season as in the past. Last season, they change the way they sold single game tickets, with 3 different price tiers. So, it's still a savings for season-tickets holders, even with paying the same price.

[hueyp]

www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/132687843.html

[uwmbacker24]

5 or 6 more years!!!?? I guess I didnt have a timeline in my head but that sounds like a long time.

[PantherU]

Oct 27, 2011 11:16:56 GMT -6 uwmbacker24 said:

5 or 6 more years!!!?? I guess I didnt have a timeline in my head but that sounds like a long time.

The George debacle pushed things back two years. When he was putting his arena together, he envisioned 2014. So this is on par.

Look, with an arena, you go through several phases.

Step one is building the plan - getting an architecture firm to put together a proposal. That can take from six months up to a year.

Step two is soliciting lead gifts. To get everyone donating to your cause, you have to get the big fish so people know the help is out there and they're not donating to a lost cause. This is usually where they get the name of the arena, from the biggest donor - corporation or private citizen. In this phase, the arena is not public.

Step three is the public unveiling of the plan. It is in this part where we get all the information, where they try and solicit smaller numbers from bigger numbers of people. This is where your $10 to five figure donations come from, and this is where the brunt of the money for construction comes from. By this point, you're already a year and a half past the planning phase.

Step three is construction. Raising money is still a big part of the process, because costs could rise from estimates and even if they don't, we still need the scratch so raising money will always be a part of it. This phase takes between 18 months and 3 years, depending on the size of the building and what the area is like before it. If you build on empty land, you may only have a couple things to do. If you build it, say, between the current footprint of the KC and where Norris is, then you have buildings to take down, and it will need more time.

So, four to five years from now doesn't seem like such a bad idea. I think we can safely assume that the planning stages are near an end, sometime within the next six months. So that would put the timeline just about right.

Are there any concerns people have that we can put to bed? Voice them here.

[ghostofdylan]

Oct 27, 2011 11:16:56 GMT -6 uwmbacker24 said:

5 or 6 more years!!!?? I guess I didnt have a timeline in my head but that sounds like a long time.

Not for those of us who've been waiting for a new arena since 1989.

[uwmfutbol]

Some of the people on the JS board really are idiots.