Duke Attendance

[cockhrnleghrn]

Many here don't realize the fan bases slowly growing disdain of Graves. The guy is just happy sitting on the end of the bench during the game and then afterwards saying week after week to the media " I have got to start coaching better". His teams are not performing to what is on paper. Fans at Oregon will support just about any team as long as the product is there.

I never did understand the poor support at Stanford.

Stanford's alumni base is national and not really concentrated around Palo Alto; state universities tend to have the majority of their alumni base close to campus. In the case of South Carolina, of course, we have a lot of alums in SC, but also in Charlotte, Atlanta and NYC. That base isn't largely in California for Stanford. They're also in a pro sports market, which usually hurts college sports attendance.

 

[triaddukefan]

Stanford's alumni base is national and not really concentrated around Palo Alto; state universities tend to have the majority of their alumni base close to campus. In the case of South Carolina, of course, we have a lot of alums in SC, but also in Charlotte, Atlanta and NYC. That base isn't largely in California for Stanford. They're also in a pro sports market, which usually hurts college sports attendance.

Duke has a similar problem in terms of being a national school. Plus the fact that our neighbors are the State Flagship and the Land Grant doesn't help matters. That being said... before ND and Louisville came aboard, Duke lead the league in attendance in most years.. there were some years we averaged 6-7 thousand fans. I know our non-conference home schedule wasn't appealing, but its perplexing why attendance hasn't jumped through the roof since the beginning of ACC play.

 

[awhom111]

Stanford's alumni base is national and not really concentrated around Palo Alto; state universities tend to have the majority of their alumni base close to campus. In the case of South Carolina, of course, we have a lot of alums in SC, but also in Charlotte, Atlanta and NYC. That base isn't largely in California for Stanford. They're also in a pro sports market, which usually hurts college sports attendance.

State universities also tend to draw natural support from residents regardless of whether they have direct ties. There was a Duke professor who always mocked UNC's "school of the people" status in the state as locals being ignorant of the overall history of who was actually attending UNC.

Stanford is hit by the double-whammy of lacking school of the people status and attracting a fairly large percentage of students that have zero interest in sports. Cal and UCLA have also lost their school of the people status over the past half-century and that clearly has transferred to sports as well. Oddly enough, by historically being the school of both the upper class and not targeting the same type of middle class student drawn to Cal and UCLA, USC is probably the closest to a "school of the people" in California.

 

[Drew8]

I think Shyanne had a pretty magical start to last season that drew some fans.

This year Duke is a pretty gritty defensive oriented team with a winning style of play.

 

[jake0414]

State universities also tend to draw natural support from residents regardless of whether they have direct ties. There was a Duke professor who always mocked UNC's "school of the people" status in the state as locals being ignorant of the overall history of who was actually attending UNC.

Stanford is hit by the double-whammy of lacking school of the people status and attracting a fairly large percentage of students that have zero interest in sports. Cal and UCLA have also lost their school of the people status over the past half-century and that clearly has transferred to sports as well. Oddly enough, by historically being the school of both the upper class and not targeting the same type of middle class student drawn to Cal and UCLA, USC is probably the closest to a "school of the people" in California.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by “school of the people” status?

 

[awhom111]

Can you elaborate on what you mean by “school of the people” status?

A school that large portions of residents of a state (or parts of a state) identify with or take pride in, including those who did not attend the school or have relatives who did.

 

[triaddukefan]

A school that large portions of residents of a state (or parts of a state) identify with or take pride in, including those who did not attend the school or have relatives who did.

They are annoying fan base in the history of the universe. Without a doubt.

 

[DefenseBB]

Um, my initial point was that the Duke attendance has dropped by 50% this year despite being better. Also, I don’t buy “National alumni based” as a reason. Look at ND for both Men’s and Women’s basketball, Duke’s Men seem to draw well and like I said the Women’s Blue Devils have done ok over the years. The PAC-12 has never really done well save for maybe Arizona With the excuse that the weather in those areas allows for more outdoor activities for the public. Again, based on well some programs have promoted to the community (think what SC, Miss State and now LSU), I think both Duke and Stanford could and should do more.

 

[sun]

Um, my initial point was that the Duke attendance has dropped by 50% this year despite being better. Also, I don’t buy “National alumni based” as a reason. Look at ND for both Men’s and Women’s basketball, Duke’s Men seem to draw well and like I said the Women’s Blue Devils have done ok over the years. The PAC-12 has never really done well save for maybe Arizona With the excuse that the weather in those areas allows for more outdoor activities for the public. Again, based on well some programs have promoted to the community (think what SC, Miss State and now LSU), I think both Duke and Stanford could and should do more.

Duke is trying to increase attendance at womens games by "tenting."

"Every year, as part of the tenting process to secure one of the 840 spots in Section 17 for the Duke-North Carolina men’s basketball home game, participating groups can earn more points in tenting by attending certain other athletic events. And two of the three by far most-attended women’s basketball home games this year (Clemson and Virginia Tech) were designated as such....
“Honestly, I hadn’t been to a women’s game until the day of the tenting test in order to receive the extra points,” said freshman Katalina Guma. “The only other game I’ve been to (the Virginia Tech game) was also for an attendance event.”"..."

Season-high attendance, K-Ville tenters propel Duke women’s basketball past Virginia Tech

Attendance for Thursday's top-20 women’s matchup was boosted primarily by students hoping to watch an unranked men’s team take on an unranked Tar Heel squad the following week.

www.dukechronicle.com

 

[azfan]

With Oregon having a down year and the last two seasons not exactly on fire, I consider a Top 10 attendance ranking a tribute to the Ducks' loyal fan base. Second only to Arizona in league and miles ahead of league leading Stanford and Utah.
ps Utah numbers (as presented here) are quite puzzling. That is one entertaining, high execution ball team. Should be filling the joint.

I think Portland is on the short list for WNBA expansion because of pretty solid fan interest in that part of the country.

 

[azfan]

Um, my initial point was that the Duke attendance has dropped by 50% this year despite being better. Also, I don’t buy “National alumni based” as a reason. Look at ND for both Men’s and Women’s basketball, Duke’s Men seem to draw well and like I said the Women’s Blue Devils have done ok over the years. The PAC-12 has never really done well save for maybe Arizona With the excuse that the weather in those areas allows for more outdoor activities for the public. Again, based on well some programs have promoted to the community (think what SC, Miss State and now LSU), I think both Duke and Stanford could and should do more.

An alternative explanation might be that these areas have reached their ceiling in terms of interest in WBB. I'm of a mixed mind on this observation but I scratch my head at the examples discussed in this thread.

In my area Grand Canyon has a rabid and vocal fan base primarily students and they do a very nice job of filling their arena and putting on a show. As mentioned the kitties draw extremely well. Alternatively even during CTT's best years the Sun Devils have never drawn. I attend Lumberjack games in the Walkup skydome with less than 150 fans.

Really hard to figure. I think though this does highlight the challenges in broadening and deepening the fan base. I think promotion and marketing are important but not complete part of a strategy.

I hope it's not true but I fear that women's basketball might be a niche experience for most people like lacrosse, Australian rules football, billiards, or ping pong.

I recall reading that the fan base for watching poker is three times the size of women's basketball. If that's true that's both deeply concerning and weird.

 

[azfan]

Most of the Big East schools have fairly small enrollments and Duke's undergraduate enrollment isn't much larger.
For the spring, 2023 semester, Duke has 6915 undergrads and 9291 graduate professional students.
Duke's incoming 1st years are 1749.

https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/office.of.the.university.registrar.duke.university/viz/EnrollmentStatistics_Snapshots_V4/AbouttheData

Plus Duke suspended their WBB season in Dec. 2020 of the 2020 -2021 season due to covid concerns.
Kara Lawson became their new coach before that season.

Duke Blue Devils end women's basketball season amid coronavirus concerns

Because of the coronavirus pandemic, the Duke women's basketball team has decided to end its season, it was announced.

www.espn.com

Who knows how much tickets cost for students to attend Duke home games and what the school does to try to attract students to the games.
Maybe more Duke fans are watching their games on TV for convenience rather than attending games in person.

This doesn't seem to impact the attendance at men's games.

Duke basketball attendance effect is absolutely staggering

As the numbers clearly show, the Blue Devil effect is in full effect this season, the last under 42nd-year Duke basketball head coach Mike Krzyzewski.

balldurham.com

 

[sun]

An alternative explanation might be that these areas have reached their ceiling in terms of interest in WBB. I'm of a mixed mind on this observation but I scratch my head at the examples discussed in this thread.

In my area Grand Canyon has a rabid and vocal fan base primarily students and they do a very nice job of filling their arena and putting on a show. As mentioned the kitties draw extremely well. Alternatively even during CTT's best years the Sun Devils have never drawn. I attend Lumberjack games in the Walkup skydome with less than 150 fans.

Really hard to figure. I think though this does highlight the challenges in broadening and deepening the fan base. I think promotion and marketing are important but not complete part of a strategy.

I hope it's not true but I fear that women's basketball might be a niche experience for most people like lacrosse, Australian rules football, billiards, or ping pong.

I recall reading that the fan base for watching poker is three times the size of women's basketball. If that's true that's both deeply concerning and weird.

I don't think that it should be worrisome that some spectator sports aren't considered to be very popular or as popular as they could be.
Folks today simply have too many other outside interests to be motivated enough to attend.
While many who do attend or stream may have enough desire to see the activity continue to remain financially viable, modern society is set up for it to be mostly supported by commercial interests.
And in the case of WCBB, it's supported largely by the Title 9 gov't mandate, tax Dollars, endowments & gifts.
Most folks are contributing without even wanting to, and that goes for college students too through their tuition & activity fees that they end up borrowing money to attend college.
To have a fan base is wonderful, but to not have a fan base doesn't mean that the sport is suffering.
Most all WCBB games are being streamed anyway.
If the primary purpose of WCBB is to obtain a degree then without a doubt the sport is a huge success with or without the fans.
An Olympic sport like BB is mostly just another industry & labor market that creates & provides jobs.

 

[DefenseBB]

An alternative explanation might be that these areas have reached their ceiling in terms of interest in WBB. I'm of a mixed mind on this observation but I scratch my head at the examples discussed in this thread.

In my area Grand Canyon has a rabid and vocal fan base primarily students and they do a very nice job of filling their arena and putting on a show. As mentioned the kitties draw extremely well. Alternatively even during CTT's best years the Sun Devils have never drawn. I attend Lumberjack games in the Walkup skydome with less than 150 fans.

Really hard to figure. I think though this does highlight the challenges in broadening and deepening the fan base. I think promotion and marketing are important but not complete part of a strategy.

I hope it's not true but I fear that women's basketball might be a niche experience for most people like lacrosse, Australian rules football, billiards, or ping pong.

I recall reading that the fan base for watching poker is three times the size of women's basketball. If that's true that's both deeply concerning and weird.

Not so sure I agree with you on your alternative explanation. Duke clearly used to draw 4,800-5,800 (granted JPM drove the attendance down from 5,800 to the 3,400 in her last year) and heck in the late 2000, CTT and ASU had 3,200-3,600 fans a game where as Arizona only had 1,300-1,700 a game. Adia has made a huge effort to garner fan support.

I did some preliminary research on your poker statement I think it is extremely dated as Nielsen is saying Poker viewership peaked in 2013/14 so do you have any better data?

 

[bballnut90]

Holy smokes! Oregon lost that Sabrina Ionescu fanbase.

Pretty common to see attendance figures drop significantly when the programs are no longer competitive. Washington had a huge fan base during Plum's senior year, Oregon State regularly sold out games, Mississippi State packed their arena.....I don't think any draw well now that their programs aren't good. Similarly, I'm guessing we'll see a massive drop off for Iowa once Clark leaves.

 

[DefenseBB]

Pretty common to see attendance figures drop significantly when the programs are no longer competitive. Washington had a huge fan base during Plum's senior year, Oregon State regularly sold out games, Mississippi State packed their arena.....I don't think any draw well now that their programs aren't good. Similarly, I'm guessing we'll see a massive drop off for Iowa once Clark leaves.

Actually, not true. From 2014 to 2020 (year before Clark), the Hawkeye's averaged 5,433 and has been one of the traditional supporters of WCBB, not to the extent that Iowa State (9,611) but better than most programs and easily in the top 15 each and every year.

By the way, the UConn game at Georgetown had 3,587 fans well above the Hoyas average of 677 per game. Let me state the obvious, Every Big East opponent has had their biggest home game attendance when the opponent was UConn. Each program also play before their largest crowds of the year with the game AT UConn (Georgetown drew 11,170 when they played at UConn in early January).

 

[bballnut90]

Actually, not true. From 2014 to 2020 (year before Clark), the Hawkeye's averaged 5,433 and has been one of the traditional supporters of WCBB, not to the extent that Iowa State (9,611) but better than most programs and easily in the top 15 each and every year.

By the way, the UConn game at Georgetown had 3,587 fans well above the Hoyas average of 677 per game. Let me state the obvious, Every Big East opponent has had their biggest home game attendance when the opponent was UConn. Each program also play before their largest crowds of the year with the game AT UConn (Georgetown drew 11,170 when they played at UConn in early January).

Good call about Iowa, probably wont be as significant as the schools mentioned, but I still think it'll be a significant drop off unless they can stay a top 10-15 team. They're averaging almost 10.5k fans per game right now, and dropping down to 5-6k is a significant drop.

 

[MSGRET]

New Mexico being that high up is impressive to me

New Mexico has always supported their Women's team when they play in the Pit. Until last year they and San Diego State were the top two teams in the Mountain West. UNLV is now the top team in the MTN, but for some reason they play at COX Pavilion which holds a little over 2,000 and is always sold out.

 

[awhom111]

triad would know more about what Duke is doing to try to get more fans in the seats as Cam and I are far away these days. In the past, when women's basketball was one of only three sports to charge anybody, they often had their own marketing person, but now that more sports sell tickets, I would not be surprised if those resources were distributed to multiple areas now. From TV observation, it seems like the lower level is pretty populated and that it is the upper level attendance that is struggling. Also, it may just be a case where Kara has not had the time or energy to get directly involved in marketing. Coach G built some powerful allies over her tenure and Coach P had the kind of personality where she loved being actively involved in trying to bring in fans.

Will be interesting to see where the average ends up after we host NC State and UNC, but it looks like it is still going to be down pretty big, even with recent numbers looking better in conference and with winning. I think that Kara is still figuring out the optimal non-conference mix, but not hosting Iowa or South Carolina obviously made a huge difference (the South Carolina game's attendance was only 17 lower than the combined attendance of all of our non-conference games this season) and for our home-only mid/low-major opponents, it certainly helps to choose closer, more familiar schools.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

I want to say this is a really great thread, because so many folks have hit on so many of the factors that long observation of 15 years at Rutgers and 10 years here in Arizona have shown.

Among the many, many valid comments -

- those that recognize success is a key metric for attendance. For all someone said (above) that Adia worked at developing a fan base, the truth of the matter is she won games. The lesser attendance before her was when the program was not successful at all.

- at the same time, there is an element of a coach being personally charismatic (helps on the recruiting side, as well). Adia has that in spades. Grentz enjoyed a lot of popularity among RU fans from her day, as she was outgoing as opposed to the much more introverted Stringer.

- many of the schools with successful attendance are located where there is less competition from professional sports or other major competition for the entertainment dollar. Ames, Iowa is a leading example. Also, factor in "college town" as a factor that can help. Tucson is both a basketball town and a UArizona town, so the women's team was ripe for becoming popular.

- as noted, again, name recognition and fans identifying with the school is a factor. Excellent discussion by several posters.

- marketing is fine, and important, but as someone above noted, it is not always a priority where WBB is concerned, and when it isn't, it shows. Schools that went out of their way to do the marketing (and that includes Arizona but not Rutgers) benefitted.

- the science of pricing is important, as well. It isn't so much how much you charge (within reason), as accessibility of tickets at a fair price to grow the fan base.

- I have to add that the more "attractive" a team seems (I don't mean appearance of the players, but rather appearance of the style of play, appearance of the team as a positive factor in the community, etc.) the more that can help. UConn runs a reasonably appealing style of play while Rutgers under CVS did not. Don't think for one second that this was not a turn on / turn off for fans on both sides.

I'm not original in this post, just trying to capture in one place some of the excellent points made. Attendance is a tricky thing.

One final thought (and the comments above about NAU made me think of it) - most non Power-5 (or 6 if you prefer to include the BE) have the additional burden that deep NCAA runs are not generally in the cards, as opposed to some so-called mid-major men's programs. I think this is a reality. As well as the fact that in many cases it just isn't great basketball. It can be, I've enjoyed some TV games you wouldn't expect to be good, but it often isn't. I remember a couple of RU fans back in the 1990's who were leaving after a hard fought RU game with some major team and they made the comment they wanted to see some "good basketball" so were going to watch Monmouth play St. Peter's. Most fans are just not that gullible.

 

[azfan]

Not so sure I agree with you on your alternative explanation. Duke clearly used to draw 4,800-5,800 (granted JPM drove the attendance down from 5,800 to the 3,400 in her last year) and heck in the late 2000, CTT and ASU had 3,200-3,600 fans a game where as Arizona only had 1,300-1,700 a game. Adia has made a huge effort to garner fan support.

I did some preliminary research on your poker statement I think it is extremely dated as Nielsen is saying Poker viewership peaked in 2013/14 so do you have any better data?

I know there is multi-causality for the absolute level of attendance in WBB as well as trend.

The poker stat was from a colleague who teaches the anthropology of sport. I have reached out for him for citation and/or more recent data.

ASU, like I would suspect some other institutions, inflates their WBB attendance. I attended most of those games and would be stunned if actual attendance was 50% of reported. I routinely moved from my general admission season ticket seat to within the second row of courtside. I can think of a handful of games with attendance over 2,000: recently U of A (mostly kitty fans driving up the I-10) and back in the day when Tennessee rolled in for a regional.

As a fan of wbb I really can't understand the lack of interest. When hockey in the desert draws more than ASU women's basketball you know that there's an issue. What that issue is I can't pretend to understand but I can speculate.

That speculation centers around causality for a lack of preference for women's basketball. I'm not certain to what extent that lack of preference can be turned by institutional marketing or subsidy.

Back to the Duke example. There are clearly rabid basketball fans that attend Duke games. Obviously it's the men's game that draws and continues to draw. With a personality like Kara and a successful team I think it's clear that the preference for women's basketball is small and maybe shrinking. Hopefully not but it's a possibility we all need to consider. This may by why the WNBA is so cautious about expansion.

As to Barnes; the dirty T has always been a huge basketball town. There's been spillover from that rabid interest starting with the fairly fast freddy Snowden days and the men really draw. Barnes really didn't have to do much other than put together a cohesive team and she's of course exceeded that and winning. Put Barnes in Tempe and she would have the same experience as Kara in NC (not that I'm arguing that ASU is the Duke of the West) and I would be stunned if she would draw more than 2000.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

I know there is multi-causality for the absolute level of attendance in WBB as well as trend.

The poker stat was from a colleague who teaches the anthropology of sport. I have reached out for him for citation and/or more recent data.

ASU, like I would suspect some other institutions, inflates their WBB attendance. I attended most of those games and would be stunned if actual attendance was 50% of reported. I routinely moved from my general admission season ticket seat to within the second row of courtside. I can think of a handful of games with attendance over 2,000: recently U of A (mostly kitty fans driving up the I-10) and back in the day when Tennessee rolled in for a regional.

As a fan of wbb I really can't understand the lack of interest. When hockey in the desert draws more than ASU women's basketball you know that there's an issue. What that issue is I can't pretend to understand but I can speculate.

That speculation centers around causality for a lack of preference for women's basketball. I'm not certain to what extent that lack of preference can be turned by institutional marketing or subsidy.

Back to the Duke example. There are clearly rabid basketball fans that attend Duke games. Obviously it's the men's game that draws and continues to draw. With a personality like Kara and a successful team I think it's clear that the preference for women's basketball is small and maybe shrinking. Hopefully not but it's a possibility we all need to consider. This may by why the WNBA is so cautious about expansion.

As to Barnes; the dirty T has always been a huge basketball town. There's been spillover from that rabid interest starting with the fairly fast freddy Snowden days and the men really draw. Barnes really didn't have to do much other than put together a cohesive team and she's of course exceeded that and winning. Put Barnes in Tempe and she would have the same experience as Kara in NC (not that I'm arguing that ASU is the Duke of the West) and I would be stunned if she would draw more than 2000.

1 - Inflation of attendance isn't unusual, because depending on the school (or even, professional team) it can be as simple as bodies through the door, or all season tix plus other bodies through the door, or all ticket "sales" or include "comps" (whether used or not, sometimes). It isn't typically made up, it just is often not specified as to what is being counted.

2 - Of course there is a lack of preference for women's basketball - a lack of tolerance for it among many men's fans. But that doesn't mean there are not plenty of available prospective women's fans to be reached.

3 - Pre-Barnes, Arizona drew well for the quality of play. Barnes brought winning. I've had season tix for 12 seasons, it isn't any more complicated than that. The WNIT run of success is what sold Arizona fans on women's basketball.

 

[azfan]

3 - Pre-Barnes, Arizona drew well for the quality of play. Barnes brought winning. I've had season tix for 12 seasons, it isn't any more complicated than that. The WNIT run of success is what sold Arizona fans on women's basketball.

But ..... It might be. Winning is one of many factors, an important one to be sure.

Attendance ( revealed preference), is a fairly complex phenomenon and I tend to be skeptical of single answer explanations and more persuaded by multi-causality. But then again I'm a Sun Devil fan so what do I know.

Tucson a community of over 500,000, the 33rd largest city in the US, has no professional football, no professional basketball, no professional hockey, no professional baseball in short it has very limited sport options for fans seeking the entertainment of attending a game in person. Also while a vibrant cultural center other options for in person entertainment are also constrained by proximity of Tucson to larger population centers or lack thereof and the size of the community.

As I previously pointed out Tucson also a very strong basketball market going back to the '70s in men's basketball with fairly fast Freddy Snowden. That is there is a relatively long-term history of strong basketball allegiance in the Old Pueblo particularly at the collegiate level.

So beyond the variable of winning: factors such as population size, alternatives for in person sports options, other entertainment options, relative geographic isolation, demographics, shape preferences for sports attendance.

If winning as you suggest is the only variable to consider and explain attendance where does that leave us in analyzing Duke and their attendance?

Now clearly time frame is an additional variable so there may be a lag effect to attendance.

What we can agree on is that we both enjoy women's basketball both in person and on the screen. And I suspect both of us would appreciate a broader audience for this sport that we enjoy.

Where we do differ is perhaps on the explanation of why the scale of support for women's basketball is closer to niche sports:. lacrosse, poker, Australian rules football, then to its male counterpart.

I like to think of myself as an optimist and so I hope you're right that there are many potential fans for the sport we love.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

But ..... It might be. Winning is one of many factors, an important one to be sure.

Attendance ( revealed preference), is a fairly complex phenomenon and I tend to be skeptical of single answer explanations and more persuaded by multi-causality. But then again I'm a Sun Devil fan so what do I know.

Tucson a community of over 500,000, the 33rd largest city in the US, has no professional football, no professional basketball, no professional hockey, no professional baseball in short it has very limited sport options for fans seeking the entertainment of attending a game in person. Also while a vibrant cultural center other options for in person entertainment are also constrained by proximity of Tucson to larger population centers or lack thereof and the size of the community.

As I previously pointed out Tucson also a very strong basketball market going back to the '70s in men's basketball with fairly fast Freddy Snowden. That is there is a relatively long-term history of strong basketball allegiance in the Old Pueblo particularly at the collegiate level.

So beyond the variable of winning: factors such as population size, alternatives for in person sports options, other entertainment options, relative geographic isolation, demographics, shape preferences for sports attendance.

If winning as you suggest is the only variable to consider and explain attendance where does that leave us in analyzing Duke and their attendance?

Now clearly time frame is an additional variable so there may be a lag effect to attendance.

What we can agree on is that we both enjoy women's basketball both in person and on the screen. And I suspect both of us would appreciate a broader audience for this sport that we enjoy.

Where we do differ is perhaps on the explanation of why the scale of support for women's basketball is closer to niche sports:. lacrosse, poker, Australian rules football, then to its male counterpart.

I like to think of myself as an optimist and so I hope you're right that there are many potential fans for the sport we love.

Attendance is, as I said in my rather lengthy post, complicated by many factors.

Tucson was ripe for increased attendance as many of the points you make are true. The only disagreement on the matter between us is that of the tipping point. The attraction to get the "ready" fan base here in Tucson into seats in McKale Center was the winning. Just a good program would have grown attendance, from the 1500 range to maybe 2500 or 3000. But upgrading to leading the PAC in attendance required "being good" as demonstrated by wins and losses. The popularity of the men's program for all these years is likewise ultimately based on "being good".

I don't know why women's basketball is not more popular. Just look at the per game average for most teams and some entire conferences. Absolutely disappointing.

 

[azfan]

I don't know why women's basketball is not more popular. Just look at the per game average for most teams and some entire conferences. Absolutely disappointing.

Right!!

Sports fans in particular and fans of entertainment are really missing out. I'm convinced that if folks seeking in person entertainment - sports or otherwise - attended a local women's game they would be surprised and well entertained.

It is interesting how some programs get it right. I mentioned the Grand Canyon and I'd love to sit down and talk with their administration to find out how they got this so right.

And thinking about this while I tend to be generally optimistic I guess in terms of the women's game I'm going to have to fall on the realistic side. Those of us who enjoy and support women's basketball will continue to do that. One troubling trend that I've noticed is that setting aside students there are a lot of gray hairs in the stands.

At the last ASU game I attended there couldn't have been more than 200 of us in the stands excluding the band. Other than the band and a half a dozen young kids I would guess that the rest of us were over 55 and most over 65.

If that anecdotal experience is generally true that certainly doesn't increase the long-term prospects of popularity.

I'm thinking about the participation on the boneyard now. While I have no way of knowing I get a sense that the vast majority of posters are of our generation. I don't get the sense that there are very many 20s or 30s or even 40s on the board.

 

[visitingcock]

Right!!

Sports fans in particular and fans of entertainment are really missing out. I'm convinced that if folks seeking in person entertainment - sports or otherwise - attended a local women's game they would be surprised and well entertained.

It is interesting how some programs get it right. I mentioned the Grand Canyon and I'd love to sit down and talk with their administration to find out how they got this so right.

And thinking about this while I tend to be generally optimistic I guess in terms of the women's game I'm going to have to fall on the realistic side. Those of us who enjoy and support women's basketball will continue to do that. One troubling trend that I've noticed is that setting aside students there are a lot of gray hairs in the stands.

At the last ASU game I attended there couldn't have been more than 200 of us in the stands excluding the band. Other than the band and a half a dozen young kids I would guess that the rest of us were over 55 and most over 65.

If that anecdotal experience is generally true that certainly doesn't increase the long-term prospects of popularity.

I'm thinking about the participation on the boneyard now. While I have no way of knowing I get a sense that the vast majority of posters are of our generation. I don't get the sense that there are very many 20s or 30s or even 40s on the board.

I think that @awhom111 will verify your age/attendance theories with age/TV viewers' stats. (See the TV Eyeball's thread on the UConn mainboard.

 

[azfan]

I think that @awhom111 will verify your age/attendance theories with age/TV viewers' stats. (See the TV Eyeball's thread on the UConn mainboard.

Thx!

Wonder if one would generalize from those specific game demographics to the broader audience.

I know baseball has been concerned for some time about the aging of their audience and the inability to attract a younger demographic.

The demographic breakdown of the selective games provided in the thread you referenced May understate the extent of the issue.

I would wonder if the broader audience for women's basketball including all of the non-power five schools would actually be more skewed to the 50 plus demographic and 65 Plus age groups?

It really doesn't bode well for the future if the vast majority of viewers are in the aged category prompting one to wonder where the next generation of fans will be coming from.

In reading reminisces on this board it seems like a number of BYers have been fans since their twenties or thirties. Would be really interesting to know the demographic breakdown of those of us today on the BY.

 

[visitingcock]

Thx!

Wonder if one would generalize from those specific game demographics to the broader audience.

I know baseball has been concerned for some time about the aging of their audience and the inability to attract a younger demographic.

The demographic breakdown of the selective games provided in the thread you referenced May understate the extent of the issue.

I would wonder if the broader audience for women's basketball including all of the non-power five schools would actually be more skewed to the 50 plus demographic and 65 Plus age groups?

It really doesn't bode well for the future if the vast majority of viewers are in the aged category prompting one to wonder where the next generation of fans will be coming from.

In reading reminisces on this board it seems like a number of BYers have been fans since their twenties or thirties. Would be really interesting to know the demographic breakdown of those of us today on the BY.

Start a poll asking people their age group. Explain why you are asking.

I don’t remember if they asked for age when I joined. The mods might have the demographics

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

Start a poll asking people their age group. Explain why you are asking.

I don’t remember if they asked for age when I joined. The mods might have the demographics

They have had the age thing (including polls) periodically. The Boneyard tends older, in fact quite old - there are (or have been) posters in their 90's. I'm in my mid 60's, a bit younger than many.

 

[awhom111]

Thx!

Wonder if one would generalize from those specific game demographics to the broader audience.

I know baseball has been concerned for some time about the aging of their audience and the inability to attract a younger demographic.

The demographic breakdown of the selective games provided in the thread you referenced May understate the extent of the issue.

I would wonder if the broader audience for women's basketball including all of the non-power five schools would actually be more skewed to the 50 plus demographic and 65 Plus age groups?

It really doesn't bode well for the future if the vast majority of viewers are in the aged category prompting one to wonder where the next generation of fans will be coming from.

In reading reminisces on this board it seems like a number of BYers have been fans since their twenties or thirties. Would be really interesting to know the demographic breakdown of those of us today on the BY.

Sports and pretty much all programming is old-skewing these days. Women's college basketball is probably a little beyond the average among sports, but not worryingly so. All sports do need to start paying attention to the younger male demographics seeming to be significantly less interested in sports and mainstream television. There are some promising signs in the younger female demographics though.

I have heard that a lot of administrators from other schools have visited Grand Canyon to see if there are any ideas that they can bring back with them. I am probably biased from knowing their AD from earlier in her career, but she has been a part of an impressive group there and certainly should on the radar for power conference schools looking for a new AD in the future.