Fan Support and Attendance

[PlayerRep]

Well, look at the way football has changed. In the 1970s, "tailgating" wasn't really an activity, and, after the game the team went to the locker room. You came to see a game, you saw it, and you went home. How has UM (and many other schools) created attendance records? They have created full-fledged social events out of football. You go to see people AND enjoy the game, jets are flying over, you can walk around in the carnivalesque atmosphere, enjoy gratuitous hospitality of complete strangers offering their gumbo or hamburgers or whatnot, HAVE A BEER, and afterwards go down on the field, especially if it was a big win, or listen to the players sing the song afterward.

In many ways, interestingly enough, the game day atmosphere at UM is created by the fans themselves. It cannot be overestimated how much of an impact "tailgating" and the festive nature of game day is founded upon what the fans themselves have created.

Basketball has stayed in the 1970s. You go to the game, watch the warm ups maybe, get a standard UM Concessions hot dog, watch more warm ups, at half time get another hot dog if you want to stand in line at the standard concession stands, and a diet pepsi, say hello to some friends, go back and watch some referees play basketball, and then at the end of the game, win or lose, everyone leaves. The team goes to the locker room, the coach gives a post-game show, and ... that's it. There's no interaction whatsoever. Fans have little opportunity to develop the environment. Too, when basketball was more popular here, there was usually a double-header: the Cubs would play first and you could see the new talent get some playing time. You could actually make an evening out of it. Now, it takes as long to get to the game and get home as the game is itself.

The social experience for football has changed dramatically. So has attendance. Basketball events remain simply "basketball games" and are relatively short at that. Nothing has changed.

Very interesting. Never thought of those differences.

However, as for the comment about tailgating not being an activity in the 70's, this was the title to the Sports Illustrated article on the 1970 Yale/Dartmouth football game: "Just ask the tailgate set who is No. 1" and the first 2 paragraphs of the article.

"Seldom in recent years had there been so much genuine cause for excitement about an Ivy League football game, and before noon the parking areas around the Yale Bowl were already full of station wagons with tailgates let down and jugs of martinis set out on plaid blankets beside plates of chicken and deviled eggs. Like a convention of John O'Hara characters, the Old Grads assembled in turtlenecks and blazers, the glow of their cheeks illuminating the candy-striped tents where the Dartmouth Class of '46, among others, hoarsely sang good old songs the way they used to be done, with banjo backing and harmony on the favorite lines and nothing that needed plugging into an electrical socket except perhaps the fingers of one Yale alum, well into his gin, who kept gloomily muttering, "Two Ivy teams ranked in the top 20, what the hell is going on here, it must be the apocalypse...."

With both Dartmouth and Yale unbeaten and rated nationally not only in both of the wire-service polls but also in the NCAA statistics, the largest crowd to see a non-Harvard game at Yale Bowl since Army was there in 1954 assembled on one of those crackling red-and-gold New England afternoons that helped to make football popular in the first place. A large part of the conversation was somewhat defensive, with people assuring one another that this whole thing was really great, that Dartmouth and Yale could certainly perform respectably against Ohio State or Texas or anybody else, and that Ivy League football, after all, is played by students. So without question in the minds of the 60,820 people who had come to watch it, this Yale-Dartmouth match was going to settle at least the amateur college football championship of the season."

 

[UMGriz75]

But there was a severe case of basketballus interruptus Saturday. Whenever the fans got into the mood, the refs threw a cold towel on the whole thing.

In academic or sports philosophy, this is actually an area of study -- it's called the "Central Test" theory -- do the rules allow the sport to exercise its key concepts to maximize the utilization of the central principles of the sport, or do the imposition of "rules" interfere with a straightforward determination of which team or player best utilizes the core concepts of the sport? Part of that concept is that interrupting the natural flow of the competition upon technical violations degrades the sport because the "natural flow" is a key fundamental to the beauty and integrity of the sport, whereas the rule violation is often arbitrary, discretional, and technical.

"Somewhere" in there, the rules need to be designed to maximize the utilization of the skillsets that comprise the "central test," -- that is, they protect and do not degrade the "central test" -- and when they reach the point that they interfere with the utilization of the skillsets, it may be said that they inhibit the development of the players, the sport, and confuse the spectating public. They defeat the Central Test Theory.

"Basketballus interruptus" is the best phrase I have seen yet to describe that phenomenon in Basketball.

 

[grizzlyjournal]

Officiating policies -- and the implementation of said policies by referees -- are destroying the college game. I've watched quite a few Pac 12 games this season and commentators are blunt: the changes to speed up the game have not worked. Worse, they've shifted officiating focus away from more important areas (correctly calling shooting fouls and what constitutes an established post pivot triangle). I'm not blaming refs; seems they're trying to do what they've been instructed to do. But the game is collapsing in unexpected ways.

A solution: Change the entire game to reflect NBA officiating, especially with continuation calls and shooting contact fouls in the key. Commentators in the NBA this year have frequently said that extensive changes in pro officiating have revitalized the game. One other thing to consider is eliminating zone defenses.

Regardless, major changes are needed because of THIS: fans at the Griz-Cat game were ready to rock & roll. But there was a severe case of basketballus interruptus Saturday. Whenever the fans got into the mood, the refs threw a cold towel on the whole thing. The atmosphere was fertile for a wild time in the old town Saturday night. Most of us left frustrated at how good that game could have been.

Interesting and agreed.

My big picture simple solution would be to call only fouls and violations that (a) make a difference or give/take advantage or (b) are blatant. No ticky tacky calls or calls far from the basket, unless advantage is gained/lost or it's totally blatant. In contact situations, more no-calls. If a guy is driving wildly to the basket and goes up, and gets bumped a bit (but not a clear foul), don't call anything. Stop calling so many fouls where the defender is flopping. More calls by refs not in the area, if they actually saw what happened and saw that their closer colleague blew the call. Slower whistles to see what happened after the minor contact or infraction. For example if the defending guard commits a little foul or has some contact 30 feet from the basketball, and the offensive player maintains possession, let it go. If the little foul or contact causes the offensive player to lose the ball, then call a foul.

:thumb: Good points! There's a good example already in place of a modified system that revitalized pro ball. A similar restructuring should also work on the college game.

 

[grizzlyjournal]

But there was a severe case of basketballus interruptus Saturday. Whenever the fans got into the mood, the refs threw a cold towel on the whole thing.

In academic or sports philosophy, this is actually an area of study -- it's called the "Central Test" theory -- do the rules allow the sport to exercise its key concepts to maximize the utilization of the central principles of the sport, or do the imposition of "rules" interfere with a straightforward determination of which team or player best utilizes the core concepts of the sport. Part of that concept is that interrupting the natural flow of the competition upon technical violations degrades the sport because the "natural flow" is a key fundamental to the beauty and integrity of the sport, whereas the rule violation is often arbitrary, discretional, and technical.

"Somewhere" in there, the rules need to be designed to maximize the utilization of the skillsets that compromise the "central test," and when they reach the point that they interfere with the utilization of the skillsets, it may be said that they inhibit the development of the players, the sport, and confuse the spectating public. They defeat the Central Test Theory.

"Basketballus interruptus" is the best phrase I have seen yet to describe that phenomenon in Basketball.

Experienced basketball officials already practice this. I've seen countless examples of officials changing the flow of a game on a dime -- usually midway through the first half or at the start of the second half -- where during a concentrated 3-to-5 minute span, clusters of touch fouls and/or illegal screen fouls on BOTH teams will bring a game to a screeching halt. From there on, players continue the game haltingly or with some trepidation regarding the sudden change in play calling. I believe this phenomenon happened early in the second half Saturday.

 

[UMGriz75]

"Seldom in recent years had there been so much genuine cause for excitement about an Ivy League football game, and before noon the parking areas around the Yale Bowl were already full of station wagons with tailgates let down and jugs of martinis set out on plaid blankets beside plates of chicken and deviled eggs. Like a convention of John O'Hara characters, the Old Grads assembled in turtlenecks and blazers, the glow of their cheeks illuminating the candy-striped tents where the Dartmouth Class of '46, among others, hoarsely sang good old songs the way they used to be done, with banjo backing and harmony on the favorite lines and nothing that needed plugging into an electrical socket except perhaps the fingers of one Yale alum, well into his gin, who kept gloomily muttering, "Two Ivy teams ranked in the top 20, what the hell is going on here, it must be the apocalypse...."

If that could be seen and experienced at a Basketball game, who wouldn't go? I wonder how Yale compares to UM now?

UM's facilities design allows some "development" there for Basketball. There's lots of room for pre-game functions and post-game celebrations. Get the players involved. Don't run them off after the game; note how football fans appreciate the attention of the players "post-game." It is a wonderful tradition at UM.

 

[ordigger]

Do away with the 3 point play as it currently it set up. Personally I find it boring that a team can basically just run down to the other end, stand on the perimeter and throw up a shot. Shooters don't even have to be good basketball players. I'd prefer to see active type players like Breunig on the inside, and Oguine. Now the occasional 3 point shot WAS exciting, but 25 a game as MSU recently did....bleh.

My suggestion is just move it out to the current NBA line, although I dont know what the difference is off the top of my. Make the shot rewarding, make the game exciting again.

 

[jodcon]

Do away with the 3 point play as it currently it set up. Personally I find it boring that a team can basically just run down to the other end, stand on the perimeter and throw up a shot. Shooters don't even have to be good basketball players. I'd prefer to see active type players like Breunig on the inside, and Oguine. Now the occasional 3 point shot WAS exciting, but 25 a game as MSU recently did....bleh.

My suggestion is just move it out to the current NBA line, although I dont know what the difference is off the top of my. Make the shot rewarding, make the game exciting again.

I don't know, it's better than it was before they pushed it out a foot about 6 or 7 years ago, but I wouldn't be against moving it to around 22' like they use Internationally.

 

['68griz]

Well, look at the way football has changed. In the 1970s, "tailgating" wasn't really an activity, and, after the game the team went to the locker room. You came to see a game, you saw it, and you went home. How has UM (and many other schools) created attendance records? They have created full-fledged social events out of football. You go to see people AND enjoy the game, jets are flying over, you can walk around in the carnivalesque atmosphere, enjoy gratuitous hospitality of complete strangers offering their gumbo or hamburgers or whatnot, HAVE A BEER, and afterwards go down on the field, especially if it was a big win, or listen to the players sing the song afterward.

In many ways, interestingly enough, the game day atmosphere at UM is created by the fans themselves. It cannot be overestimated how much of an impact "tailgating" and the festive nature of game day is founded upon what the fans themselves have created.

Basketball has stayed in the 1970s. You go to the game, watch the warm ups maybe, get a standard UM Concessions hot dog, watch more warm ups, at half time get another hot dog if you want to stand in line at the standard concession stands, and a diet pepsi, say hello to some friends, go back and watch some referees play basketball, and then at the end of the game, win or lose, everyone leaves. The team goes to the locker room, the coach gives a post-game show, and ... that's it. There's no interaction whatsoever. Fans have little opportunity to develop the environment. Too, when basketball was more popular here, there was usually a double-header: the Cubs would play first and you could see the new talent get some playing time. You could actually make an evening out of it. Now, it takes as long to get to the game and get home as the game is itself.

The social experience for football has changed dramatically. So has attendance. Basketball events remain simply "basketball games" and are relatively short at that. Nothing has changed.

Honest question: is tailgating a part of the basketball culture anywhere?

 

[jodcon]

Well, look at the way football has changed. In the 1970s, "tailgating" wasn't really an activity, and, after the game the team went to the locker room. You came to see a game, you saw it, and you went home. How has UM (and many other schools) created attendance records? They have created full-fledged social events out of football. You go to see people AND enjoy the game, jets are flying over, you can walk around in the carnivalesque atmosphere, enjoy gratuitous hospitality of complete strangers offering their gumbo or hamburgers or whatnot, HAVE A BEER, and afterwards go down on the field, especially if it was a big win, or listen to the players sing the song afterward.

In many ways, interestingly enough, the game day atmosphere at UM is created by the fans themselves. It cannot be overestimated how much of an impact "tailgating" and the festive nature of game day is founded upon what the fans themselves have created.

Basketball has stayed in the 1970s. You go to the game, watch the warm ups maybe, get a standard UM Concessions hot dog, watch more warm ups, at half time get another hot dog if you want to stand in line at the standard concession stands, and a diet pepsi, say hello to some friends, go back and watch some referees play basketball, and then at the end of the game, win or lose, everyone leaves. The team goes to the locker room, the coach gives a post-game show, and ... that's it. There's no interaction whatsoever. Fans have little opportunity to develop the environment. Too, when basketball was more popular here, there was usually a double-header: the Cubs would play first and you could see the new talent get some playing time. You could actually make an evening out of it. Now, it takes as long to get to the game and get home as the game is itself.

The social experience for football has changed dramatically. So has attendance. Basketball events remain simply "basketball games" and are relatively short at that. Nothing has changed.

Honest question: is tailgating a part of the basketball culture anywhere?

Nowhere where the weather is a factor, I think it's called pre and post-game bar hopping in the frozen tundra.

Maybe someone in the South has seen it?

 

[UMGriz75]

Honest question: is tailgating a part of the basketball culture anywhere?

We are talking about a decline in basketball attendance everywhere even as "tailgating" has become more of a feature of football, and increased attendance. Honest answer. Football became much more of a social experience -- an "event" -- whereas Basketball remains as it was presented in the 1950s, when the live game was much preferred over listening on the radio.

And, it certainly wasn't for us here at UM in the early 1970s; and the "concept" can't be translated directly from football because of the seasons. But, UM can allow "something" besides concession food and diet pepsis. After all, it was allowing people to enjoy a beer on UM property -- recall that Hunter S. Thompson was almost refused his appearance because of his requirement for a fifth of Chivas Regal, which was finally allowed in "violation" of UM policies, the antiquated Carrie Nation demonization of demon rum -- that exploded the "football culture" at UM.

 

[BWahlberg]

Me, personally, sometimes it's really tough to get to games. I have 3 kids, so the weekday games are out due to school. Saturday games are possible obviously, and we hit a few, however it pairs down the availability of games to get to. Just a fact of life for me and many other parents with younger kids.

The other thought I had was in years past, as the season went on, the home games got more important. Regardless the opponent, the Feb/Mar games usually had home court on the line. You felt more urgency to go to the games because it felt a better crowd/atmosphere could hopefully set up a home-tourney. But now that it's the stupid "Road to Reno" that doesn't matter. Hell, winning the conference doesn't mean much outside of a for sure NIT birth now, since the top 4 teams get byes on a neutral court and everyone makes the tourney. I think this new format has taken that sort of urgency/excitement out of the last 3-4 weeks of the season, and it's a pretty damn sad thing to see honestly.

 

[EverettGriz]

Shitty officials.

Shitty opposing teams.

Shitty conference.

Shitty decisions to render all 28 regular season games worthless.


I'm surprised they draw as well as they do.

 

[PlayerRep]

Shitty fans who can't appreciate what UM hoops has, and just want to complain. Or, at least too many of them.

 

[UMGriz75]

The other thought I had was in years past, as the season went on, the home games got more important. Regardless the opponent, the Feb/Mar games usually had home court on the line. You felt more urgency to go to the games because it felt a better crowd/atmosphere could hopefully set up a home-tourney. But now that it's the stupid "Road to Reno" that doesn't matter. Hell, winning the conference doesn't mean much outside of a for sure NIT birth now, since the top 4 teams get byes on a neutral court and everyone makes the tourney. I think this new format has taken that sort of urgency/excitement out of the last 3-4 weeks of the season, and it's a pretty damn sad thing to see honestly.

The "amazing" part is that the idea is so transparently goofy. As usual, there is no evidence that any kind of actual study or survey was done for this, no "business plan," no public input. I haven't run across anyone that doesn't see myriad problems in the "Reno" concept, the lack of enthusiasm, the cost, the time imposition on student athletes during the semester (coming just at the time Midterm exams and papers are usually scheduled at UM), the loss of tournament seeding at home, the final economic cost to the basketball programs. Now, even the conference doormat gets to spend good money it doesn't have to travel to Reno for one or more days, making uncertain numbers of reservation days and flight plans, including for fans -- all-in-all six days school loss for any team in the running.

You'd think that all the intellectual horsepower of the several University Presidents with PhDs, Athletic Directors with deep experience, and coaches with their student-athletes' best academic interests at heart, would have pushed back.

 

[UMGriz75]

Shitty fans who can't appreciate what UM hoops has, and just want to complain. Or, at least too many of them.

I don't think anyone is complaining about the team this year, nor complaining about going to a basketball game.

But, if the team wants to increase attendance without just using "shaming" as the primary tool, a useless and somewhat contrary approach, it needs to do something about it besides just complain.

Basketball is competing with far more on people's crowded schedules than it did in the 1950s. But, not much has changed for the game day experience.

Too, walking across Campus, there is little effort to make a "game-day" buzz. No posters, no flags, no sandwich boards, no activities in the UC, no coach or athlete appearances, no raffles. Just nothing. I noticed that Tinks' first efforts at OSU was manning a table handing out sodas. Get out and do something besides complain. Frankly, I often forget on Thursdays especially, that "there's a game tonight" until I get home for dinner because there is not one fricking indication on campus or downtown or even at Adams Center that anything is happening.

Football, as an event culture, is now hard to miss. Basketball is hard to see.

 

[UMGriz75]

And the "Reno" concept just makes it worse. Out of that fiasco, the students certainly aren't going to attend. So UM students, for instance, are simply not going to see heart-stopping season finales with Breunig or Oguine doing something spectacular. And that goes for all the students that might be more than glad to hop in the car even to go some distance that's driveable.

It's almost as though "Reno" was designed to eliminate the student spectator portion of the audience -- the kids that might get excited about the team and start attending all season next year.

 

[PlayerRep]

The other thought I had was in years past, as the season went on, the home games got more important. Regardless the opponent, the Feb/Mar games usually had home court on the line. You felt more urgency to go to the games because it felt a better crowd/atmosphere could hopefully set up a home-tourney. But now that it's the stupid "Road to Reno" that doesn't matter. Hell, winning the conference doesn't mean much outside of a for sure NIT birth now, since the top 4 teams get byes on a neutral court and everyone makes the tourney. I think this new format has taken that sort of urgency/excitement out of the last 3-4 weeks of the season, and it's a pretty damn sad thing to see honestly.

The "amazing" part is that the idea is so transparently goofy. As usual, there is no evidence that any kind of actual study or survey was done for this, no "business plan," no public input. I haven't run across anyone that doesn't see myriad problems in the "Reno" concept, the lack of enthusiasm, the cost, the time imposition on student athletes during the semester (coming just at the time Midterm exams and papers are usually scheduled at UM), the loss of tournament seeding at home, the final economic cost to the basketball programs. Now, even the conference doormat gets to spend good money it doesn't have to travel to Reno for one or more days, making uncertain numbers of reservation days and flight plans, including for fans -- all-in-all six days school loss for any team in the running.

You'd think that all the intellectual horsepower of the several University Presidents with PhDs, Athletic Directors with deep experience, and coaches with their student-athletes' best academic interests at heart, would have pushed back.

Perhaps there was no business plan, because that's apparently the way Engstrom likes to do it.

What's your thought on the final economic cost to the basketball programs? I thought the whole idea was to be able to book in advance for travel and lodging and save money? Are you thinking that other revenue losses will offset the travel cost savings?

 

[PlayerRep]

Shitty fans who can't appreciate what UM hoops has, and just want to complain. Or, at least too many of them.

I don't think anyone is complaining about the team this year, nor complaining about going to a basketball game.

But, if the team wants to increase attendance without just using "shaming" as the primary tool, a useless and somewhat contrary approach, it needs to do something about it besides just complain.

Basketball is competing with far more on people's crowded schedules than it did in the 1950s. But, not much has changed for the game day experience.

Too, walking across Campus, there is little effort to make a "game-day" buzz. No posters, no flags, no sandwich boards, no activities in the UC, no coach or athlete appearances, no raffles. Just nothing. I noticed that Tinks' first efforts at OSU was manning a table handing out sodas. Get out and do something besides complain. Frankly, I often forget on Thursdays especially, that "there's a game tonight" until I get home for dinner because there is not one fricking indication on campus or downtown or even at Adams Center that anything is happening.

Football, as an event culture, is now hard to miss. Basketball is hard to see.

Was thinking about complaints about officials, opposing teams, conference, tourney format.

 

[grizd]

Shitty fans who can't appreciate what UM hoops has, and just want to complain. Or, at least too many of them.

I don't think anyone is complaining about the team this year, nor complaining about going to a basketball game.

But, if the team wants to increase attendance without just using "shaming" as the primary tool, a useless and somewhat contrary approach, it needs to do something about it besides just complain.

Basketball is competing with far more on people's crowded schedules than it did in the 1950s. But, not much has changed for the game day experience.

Too, walking across Campus, there is little effort to make a "game-day" buzz. No posters, no flags, no sandwich boards, no activities in the UC, no coach or athlete appearances, no raffles. Just nothing. I noticed that Tinks' first efforts at OSU was manning a table handing out sodas. Get out and do something besides complain. Frankly, I often forget on Thursdays especially, that "there's a game tonight" until I get home for dinner because there is not one fricking indication on campus or downtown or even at Adams Center that anything is happening.

Football, as an event culture, is now hard to miss. Basketball is hard to see.

Was thinking about complaints about officials, opposing teams, conference, tourney format.

Why does the blame always go to shitty fans? It seems as if pointing out frustrations and ideas makes a fan shitty. The game Saturday was slow, something that a casual fan of basketball doesn't like and something that makes other competition for time and the dollar look better. Complaining about a home schedule that includes: Boise, Carroll, San Francisco, Great Falls, Western, PSU, Sac St., Idaho, EWU, SUU, NAU, MSU, UND, and NCU makes a person a shitty fan as well evidently. People that attend occasionally or that travel from out of town want to see talent or a rivalry on both sides to put aside all other activities and/or duties to attend. That's not being shitty that's being real. People will come but the idea of promoting more and being more creative with the gameday experience is a good one. I think there's a way to get a better crowd but that's not all on the team or the coach. The PR dept needs to step it up a bit as well.

 

[grizatwork]

Me, personally, sometimes it's really tough to get to games. I have 3 kids, so the weekday games are out due to school. Saturday games are possible obviously, and we hit a few, however it pairs down the availability of games to get to. Just a fact of life for me and many other parents with younger kids.

The other thought I had was in years past, as the season went on, the home games got more important. Regardless the opponent, the Feb/Mar games usually had home court on the line. You felt more urgency to go to the games because it felt a better crowd/atmosphere could hopefully set up a home-tourney. But now that it's the stupid "Road to Reno" that doesn't matter. Hell, winning the conference doesn't mean much outside of a for sure NIT birth now, since the top 4 teams get byes on a neutral court and everyone makes the tourney. I think this new format has taken that sort of urgency/excitement out of the last 3-4 weeks of the season, and it's a pretty damn sad thing to see honestly.

Football is 5-6 home games and playoffs. Weather is nicer and there is a long wait period for the hype to build and we are anxious because summer is kind of a dead period. Basketball is numerous home games and start while football is still going. Travel weather is not as nice and one game is on a Thursday night. There is usually a football fatigue as well as financial investment involved in football. Therefore you are pretty dependent on local people and those with kids need a good reason to mess up Friday school schedule for a Thursday night game. All my kids are out of school now and I would love to go, but my wife and I have jobs in Great Falls, so it would be hard to take off a Friday. That leaves coming over for a Saturday, and I would honestly rather spend my time skiing or snowshoeing. If I lived in Missoula, I would do that during the day and then go to the game at night. If I lived in Missoula, I would be making all the games. That leaves the students. They have been disenfranchised since the remodel and the removal of the zoo. It would take someone with cajones to bite the bullet and move them back and give them time to find their way back. I think the other alternative would be to do another remodel of the north basket side and make that whole end a new zoo from the floor to the end. I don't know if that is possible, but the answer is getting the students to have a section like they do for football.