I post this for informational purposes only. Some home schedules were bad (Sam), while others had an unusual numb (UTRGV). As I’m newish to the conference, I wanted to see how everyone looked. I knew GCU and NMSU would be at the top. Didn’t know much about the rest.

1) GCU 6,963
2) NMSU 5,079
3) CBU 3,341 (last home game against Portland St isn’t in the box score)
4) SFA 2,118
5) UTA 1,662
6) UTRGV 1,621
7) UVU 1,488
8) SUU 1,396
9) ACU 1,326
10) SHSU 1,268
11) TSU 1,223
12) UT 1,034
13) SU 927

It's strange how ACU literally has the best basketball experience in the region and can't draw a crowd. The quality of the play is really good. The lights, sound and atmosphere are next level. The people of the Big Country literally don't know what they have under their nose.

NMSU number would be even higher if we played the NuM home game.

Now do it with comparable percentage to students and arena capacity!

(12-26-2022 08:50 PM)Outsider Wrote:  It's strange how ACU literally has the best basketball experience in the region and can't draw a crowd. The quality of the play is really good. The lights, sound and atmosphere are next level. The people of the Big Country literally don't know what they have under their nose.

I thought the same thing. They are only a couple of years removed from winning an NCAA tournament.

(12-27-2022 01:06 PM)PojoaquePosse Wrote:  NMSU number would be even higher if we played the NuM home game.

Agreed. I'd also imagine that whole situation has suppressed interest, but I'm not certain if it's noticeable or a rounding error.

(12-27-2022 02:58 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  Now do it with comparable percentage to students and arena capacity!

I didn't know I needed to put the qualifiers in there to make those at the end feel good. But let's take a look.

Arena Capacity (taken from school's website in most cases)
1) GCU 6,963 (99.5% of 7,000)
2) NMSU 5,079 (40.3% of 12,572)
3) CBU 3,341 (66.2 % of 5,050)
4) SFA 2,118 (29.4% of 7,203)
5) UTA 1,662 (23.7% of 7,000)
6) UTRGV 1,621 (660 average at UTRGV field house, 26.4% of 2,500)
(4,015 average at Bert Ogden Arena, 43.1% of 9,324)
7) UVU 1,488 (17.5% of 8,500)
8) SUU 1,396 (26.3% of 5,300)
9) ACU 1,326 (36.8% of 3,600)
10) SHSU 1,268 (20.7% of 6,100)
11) TSU 1,223 (51.0% of 2,400)
12) UT 1,034 (21.6% of 4,779)
13) SU 927 (840 average at Redhawk Arena, 84.1% of 999)
(1,277 average at Climate Pledge Arena, 7.0% of 18,300)

Ouch. Climate Pledge Arena must have sounded like a library. Look to UTRGV to see how to attend off-campus home games.

Enrollment (harder to find, so I'm just using Wikipedia. Don't @ me if it's not the most current)
1) GCU 6,963 (27.9% of 25,000)
2) NMSU 5,079 (23.4% of 21,694)
3) CBU 3,341 (29.1% of 11,491)
4) SFA 2,118 (17.7% of 11,946)
5) UTA 1,662 (3.9% of 42,863)
6) UTRGV 1,621 (5.0% of 32,419)
7) UVU 1,488 (3.6% of 41,728)
8) SUU 1,396 (12.4% of 11,224)
9) ACU 1,326 (24.9% of 5,334)
10) SHSU 1,268 (5.8% of 21,679)
11) TSU 1,223 (8.7% of 13,996)
12) UT 1,034 (8.2% of 12,650)
13) SU 927 (11.9% of 7,755)

Seattle moves up to seventh when enrollment is factored. Must be a basketball powerhouse. Hopefully Gonzaga is prepared for the onslaught coming.

City Population (figured Double would want all the info)
1) GCU 6,963 (.43% of 1,608,139)
2) NMSU 5,079 (4.56% of 111,385)
3) CBU 3,341 (1.06% of 314,998)
4) SFA 2,118 (6.59% of 32,147)
5) UTA 1,662 (.42% of 394,266)
6) UTRGV 1,621 (1.60% of 101,170)
7) UVU 1,488 (1.52% of 98,129)
8) SUU 1,396 (4.02% of 34,764)
9) ACU 1,326 (1.05% of 125,182)
10) SHSU 1,268 (2.76% of 45,941)
11) TSU 1,223 (5.87% of 20,847)
12) UT 1,034 (1.08% of 95,342)
13) SU 927 (.13% of 737015)

Metro population (figured Double would be super interested in this as well)
1) GCU 6,963 (0.144% of 4,845,832)
2) NMSU 5,079 (2.191% of 213,849)
3) CBU 3,341 (.001% of 18,490,242)
4) SFA 2,118 (3.272% of 64,736)
5) UTA 1,662 (.032% of 5,121,892)
6) UTRGV 1,621 (.186% of 870,781)
7) UVU 1,488 (.222% of 671,185)
8) SUU 1,396 (2.307% of 60,519)
9) ACU 1,326 (.748% of 177,314)
10) SHSU 1,268 (1.626% of 77,977)
11) TSU 1,223 (2.819% of 43,378)
12) UT 1,034 (.541% of 191,226)
13) SU 927 (.023% of 4,011,553)

...well... Maybe Gonzaga is safe after all.

Any other percentages you want to post to try and make Seattle's three-digit attendance average look ... not as bad?

I get and understand adjusting the attendance rates for student populations and capacity, but that doesn't really matter that much for us right now. It did when we were in our temporary facility but not now. We reduced the capacity of our arena slightly to improve the seating even more and improve the experience. We added improved lighting and sound shows. None of that has made a difference. And yes, even if you weren't an ACU fan, you have one of the countries better mid-major programs playing other high level mid-major competition right there.

I'm not certain why capacity matters either. Is CBU a better program than NMSU because they average a higher capacity?

Seattle sold out once in 999-seat Redhawk Arena. Anything below 100% capacity and it doesn't matter. Will they get bigger crowds when conference play starts? I'd assume so. Will they pass UTA? Maybe, but it doesn't bother me if they do or concern me one way or another. I'm more concerned with growing the program and recovering from a bad coaching decision. What the rest of the conference does is irrelevant.

I find attendance intriguing, but it is a relatively low-priority stat and gives no indication about a program.

It has nothing to do with being a better program, but if a team that plays in a 1,000 seat arena can only draw 1,000, someone like UVU and UTA who have 6x the students and 8x larger arenas, have low engagement with their students. UTA has more than 40,000 students and isn’t getting 2,000 a game. While Seattle U gets less people there, limited by their much smaller student population and arena size.

Even NMSU has “problems”, as they almost go to the NCAAs on a yearly basis, but can’t get 50% of their arena full for most games.

(12-27-2022 08:27 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  It has nothing to do with being a better program, but if a team that plays in a 1,000 seat arena can only draw 1,000, someone like UVU and UTA who have 6x the students and 8x larger arenas, have low engagement with their students. UTA has more than 40,000 students and isn’t getting 2,000 a game. While Seattle U gets less people there, limited by their much smaller student population and arena size.

Even NMSU has “problems”, as they almost go to the NCAAs on a yearly basis but can’t get 50% of their arena full for most games.

There was a time when NMSU could draw 8-10K per game, but those time have changed. Even though 5K is a far cry from 8-10K, NMSU still draws well by mid-major standards. However, trying to correlate game attendance to school size is a bit of a misnomer. Schools only allocate a certain number of seats to the student body for each game. The rest of the seats are sold to season ticket holders and the general public. For the most part, NMSU has a fairly healthy student participation, but it could still be better. In GCU's case, they fill half their arena with students. However, GCU's fans don't travel well unless the seats are cheap or free. Otherwise, they would have drawn more than 4,781 fans to their game against North Texas in the Footprint Center (home of the Phoenix Suns)... and they would be filling the Orleans Arena in Las Vegas during the post season. So, although impressive, GCU's 7k attendance is created mostly by the student body that has already paid for their seats in tuition before they ever step in the arena. That is not a business model that many mid-major universities can afford... if they want to generate game revenue. But admittedly GCU game attendance does look impressive on TV and for the recruiting purposes.

I did a quick look and I think NMSU is in the top 4 of all the metrics posted.

(12-27-2022 08:27 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  It has nothing to do with being a better program, but if a team that plays in a 1,000 seat arena can only draw 1,000, someone like UVU and UTA who have 6x the students and 8x larger arenas, have low engagement with their students. UTA has more than 40,000 students and isn’t getting 2,000 a game. While Seattle U gets less people there, limited by their much smaller student population and arena size.

Even NMSU has “problems”, as they almost go to the NCAAs on a yearly basis, but can’t get 50% of their arena full for most games.

That begs the question, do you build an arena for now, the future, for potential expansion, for average, for a stand-out event?

In NMSU's case, they have sell-outs regularly, but hit 6-8,000 average yearly. I would say they don't have a problem. When UTED or UNM come to town, they have the ability to bring the fans in. Design certainly comes into play as you don't want 6,000 fans to sound quiet.

I'd say NMSU's situation is better than Seattle's where SU has an undersized arena that sits near capacity. More and more schools are downsizing their arenas. to get higher-capacity per crowd, but it's usually the mid-1,000's.

(12-27-2022 11:26 PM)NMSUPistolPete Wrote:  

(12-27-2022 08:27 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  It has nothing to do with being a better program, but if a team that plays in a 1,000 seat arena can only draw 1,000, someone like UVU and UTA who have 6x the students and 8x larger arenas, have low engagement with their students. UTA has more than 40,000 students and isn’t getting 2,000 a game. While Seattle U gets less people there, limited by their much smaller student population and arena size.

Even NMSU has “problems”, as they almost go to the NCAAs on a yearly basis but can’t get 50% of their arena full for most games.

There was a time when NMSU could draw 8-10K per game, but those time have changed. Even though 5K is a far cry from 8-10K, NMSU still draws well by mid-major standards. However, trying to correlate game attendance to school size is a bit of a misnomer. Schools only allocate a certain number of seats to the student body for each game. The rest of the seats are sold to season ticket holders and the general public. For the most part, NMSU has fairly healthy student participation, but it could be still better. In GCU's case, they fill half their arena with students. However, GCU's fans don't travel well unless the seats are cheap or free. Otherwise, they would have drawn more than 4,781 fans to their game against North Texas in the Footprint Center (home of the Phoenix Suns)... and they would be filling the Orleans Arena in Las Vegas during post season. So, although impressive, GCU's 7k attendance is created mostly by the student body that has already paid for their seats in tuition before they ever step in the arena. That is a not business model that many mid-major universities can afford... if they want to generate revenue. But admittedly GCU game attendance does look impressive on TV and for recruiting purposes.

Good point on the enrollment/attendance and the principle of correlation does not equal causation.

Until schools are losing money giving the seats to the students, seems like a good way to generate interest and create a better atmosphere.

(12-28-2022 01:17 AM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  

(12-27-2022 11:26 PM)NMSUPistolPete Wrote:  

(12-27-2022 08:27 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  It has nothing to do with being a better program, but if a team that plays in a 1,000 seat arena can only draw 1,000, someone like UVU and UTA who have 6x the students and 8x larger arenas, have low engagement with their students. UTA has more than 40,000 students and isn’t getting 2,000 a game. While Seattle U gets less people there, limited by their much smaller student population and arena size.

Even NMSU has “problems”, as they almost go to the NCAAs on a yearly basis but can’t get 50% of their arena full for most games.

There was a time when NMSU could draw 8-10K per game, but those time have changed. Even though 5K is a far cry from 8-10K, NMSU still draws well by mid-major standards. However, trying to correlate game attendance to school size is a bit of a misnomer. Schools only allocate a certain number of seats to the student body for each game. The rest of the seats are sold to season ticket holders and the general public. For the most part, NMSU has fairly healthy student participation, but it could be still better. In GCU's case, they fill half their arena with students. However, GCU's fans don't travel well unless the seats are cheap or free. Otherwise, they would have drawn more than 4,781 fans to their game against North Texas in the Footprint Center (home of the Phoenix Suns)... and they would be filling the Orleans Arena in Las Vegas during post season. So, although impressive, GCU's 7k attendance is created mostly by the student body that has already paid for their seats in tuition before they ever step in the arena. That is a not business model that many mid-major universities can afford... if they want to generate revenue. But admittedly GCU game attendance does look impressive on TV and for recruiting purposes.

Good point on the enrollment/attendance and the principle of correlation does not equal causation.

Until schools are losing money giving the seats to the students, seems like a good way to generate interest and create a better atmosphere.

During NMSU's heyday in attendance, some of the best seats were given to the student body. As ticket prices have increased to generate more revenue the student body has been moved to less desirable seat to sell their center court seats to the season ticketholders and the general public. Right now, NMSU probably making more money on a seat-by-seat basis, but the attendance has suffered.

GCU's Havoc has center court seating. There are not many schools who can give those high value seats away to non-paying students. As I said, it looks good on TV but it's not a good business model if a school is trying to make money for each home game. Most of the game attendance needs to pay money at the door... which makes me wonder how Seattle makes money from basketball? Obviously, game attendance is not a big deal.

For NMSU, paid attendance matters greatly for Aggie Athletics. That is why NMSU is leaving the WAC for C-USA. Football drives the bus for All FBS programs. And there is a lot more money to be made in football than what basketball can generate.

(12-28-2022 07:18 AM)NMSUPistolPete Wrote:  

(12-28-2022 01:17 AM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  

(12-27-2022 11:26 PM)NMSUPistolPete Wrote:  

(12-27-2022 08:27 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  It has nothing to do with being a better program, but if a team that plays in a 1,000 seat arena can only draw 1,000, someone like UVU and UTA who have 6x the students and 8x larger arenas, have low engagement with their students. UTA has more than 40,000 students and isn’t getting 2,000 a game. While Seattle U gets less people there, limited by their much smaller student population and arena size.

Even NMSU has “problems”, as they almost go to the NCAAs on a yearly basis but can’t get 50% of their arena full for most games.

There was a time when NMSU could draw 8-10K per game, but those time have changed. Even though 5K is a far cry from 8-10K, NMSU still draws well by mid-major standards. However, trying to correlate game attendance to school size is a bit of a misnomer. Schools only allocate a certain number of seats to the student body for each game. The rest of the seats are sold to season ticket holders and the general public. For the most part, NMSU has fairly healthy student participation, but it could be still better. In GCU's case, they fill half their arena with students. However, GCU's fans don't travel well unless the seats are cheap or free. Otherwise, they would have drawn more than 4,781 fans to their game against North Texas in the Footprint Center (home of the Phoenix Suns)... and they would be filling the Orleans Arena in Las Vegas during post season. So, although impressive, GCU's 7k attendance is created mostly by the student body that has already paid for their seats in tuition before they ever step in the arena. That is a not business model that many mid-major universities can afford... if they want to generate revenue. But admittedly GCU game attendance does look impressive on TV and for recruiting purposes.

Good point on the enrollment/attendance and the principle of correlation does not equal causation.

Until schools are losing money giving the seats to the students, seems like a good way to generate interest and create a better atmosphere.

During NMSU's heyday in attendance, some of the best seats were given to the student body. As ticket prices have increased to generate more revenue the student body has been moved to less desirable seat to sell their center court seats to the season ticketholders and the general public. Right now, NMSU probably making more money on a seat-by-seat basis, but the attendance has suffered.

GCU's Havoc has center court seating. There are not many schools who can give those high value seats away to non-paying students. As I said, it looks good on TV but it's not a good business model if a school is trying to make money for each home game. Most of the game attendance needs to pay money at the door... which makes me wonder how Seattle makes money from basketball? Obviously, game attendance is not a big deal.

For NMSU, paid attendance matters greatly for Aggie Athletics. That is why NMSU is leaving the WAC for C-USA. Football drives the bus for All FBS programs. And there is a lot more money to be made in football than what basketball can generate.

Unless they get a huge gift that pays for most of a $50 million (minimum) arena, it may not pay for itself in its lifetime. There’s no state money building Seattle U an arena. It would be a struggle to build an on campus arena with adequate parking in a city. They can’t just buy the open 100 acres next to campus and pave the whole thing for a parking lot and new gym.

I have no doubt they have something semi planned if the money were there, but with Climate Pledge available, I don’t see much hindrance.

Compare these same schools' attendance before broadcasting home games and now. I will assume they get money from the broadcast rites that makes it worthwhile.

everybody's situation and fanbase is different. for UTA located in a large metro area with almost every pro sport and many concert venues, we have a lot to compete with and metro area fans are picky. while the area is pretty cosmopolitan and there are lots of transplants from basketball areas of the country, there just isnt much draw for a game between UTA and anybody on our usual schedule. we have a cpl. hundred thousand area alumni but not a large number of folks that will come out to support the team no matter who they are playing like some schools where there are limited choices. we need a product that a fan can get excited about enough to come out. it doesnt help that the administration does not strive for the best in sports like many other schools. when a "name" school comes in for various sports we have decent crowds but some are not there to see the home team. sadly in all the 50 years since I graduated we have been mostly an "also ran" in sports with few bright spots.

(12-28-2022 03:14 PM)runamuck Wrote:  everybody's situation and fanbase is different. for UTA located in a large metro area with almost every pro sport and many concert venues, we have a lot to compete with and metro area fans are picky. while the area is pretty cosmopolitan and there are lots of transplants from basketball areas of the country, there just isnt much draw for a game between UTA and anybody on our usual schedule. we have a cpl. hundred thousand area alumni but not a large number of folks that will come out to support the team no matter who they are playing like some schools where there are limited choices. we need a product that a fan can get excited about enough to come out. it doesnt help that the administration does not strive for the best in sports like many other schools. when a "name" school comes in for various sports we have decent crowds but some are not there to see the home team. sadly in all the 50 years since I graduated we have been mostly an "also ran" in sports with few bright spots.

I think it will be interesting to see the makeup of the crowd for the Tarleton game. Purple May outnumber the blue.

(12-28-2022 03:14 PM)runamuck Wrote:  everybody's situation and fanbase is different. for UTA located in a large metro area with almost every pro sport and many concert venues, we have a lot to compete with and metro area fans are picky. while the area is pretty cosmopolitan and there are lots of transplants from basketball areas of the country, there just isnt much draw for a game between UTA and anybody on our usual schedule. we have a cpl. hundred thousand area alumni but not a large number of folks that will come out to support the team no matter who they are playing like some schools where there are limited choices. we need a product that a fan can get excited about enough to come out. it doesnt help that the administration does not strive for the best in sports like many other schools. when a "name" school comes in for various sports we have decent crowds but some are not there to see the home team. sadly in all the 50 years since I graduated we have been mostly an "also ran" in sports with few bright spots.

Ok, but you can’t even get students to go to your games. Not being able to get adults and families is one thing, no excuse to have less than 2,000 students to games.

(12-28-2022 12:26 PM)FirstandGoal Wrote:  Compare these same schools' attendance before broadcasting home games and now. I will assume they get money from the broadcast rites that makes it worthwhile.

The WAC gets money from ESPN. I do not know if it is “worthwhile” or not. Yes, broadcasting games will keep some fans home. But the WAC wasn’t drawing standing room only crowds when every game wasn’t broadcast.