NCAA 1st/2nd Round Attendance

[DefenseBB]

Ok, the numbers are in (mostly anyway, as UCLA did not disclose their 1st round session attendance ) I have listed each round, the two session average, the '23 season average and the season average rank. I sorted by the 2 round average. Iowa led the way and was second behind SC during the Season of the 16 hosts. SC was 3rd as hosts but led the 16 during the season-Was SC on spring break? Odd they didn't have more fans. I have also highlighted the 9 schools that hosted this year and last year and listed the 2 round average from last year. All 9 schools showed an increase this year over last year. KUDOS to all!
The pleasant observation is the big jump in the tournament games for Virginia Tech and Utah over their season averages. Overall, I think the NCAA is doing the right thing in having the top 16 host to get the arenas filled with fans. Also all the other sports host the opening rounds at the better seeded schools so this is consistent. Only MCBB is totally neutral site for all their rounds.

 

[SECbbfan24]

I just can’t get past those Duke numbers..

You are hosting at home with a shot at a sweet 16 and only can muster just 2,000 a game? With the 2nd round one being even less. I get it’s a Monday but still…

UCLAs isn’t much better either

 

[LowkeyX]

Maryland must boost their numbers during the regular season or something lol because I could’ve sworn the attendance on Sunday against Arizona was just as high as the Iowa game at least.

Unless they’re counting tickets purchased vs. actual attendance.

I know a lot of teams like Va Tech, Iowa, Utah & Indiana attendance increased for the NCAA tourney but it’s weird how Tennessee, SC & Maryland’s attendance dropped considerably.

 

[azfan]

I just can’t get past those Duke numbers..

You are hosting at home with a shot at a sweet 16 and only can muster just 2,000 a game? With the 2nd round one being even less. I get it’s a Monday but still…

UCLAs isn’t much better either

IKR! I was struck by the really low Duke attendance and while I was too lazy to go see if there were other games over the weekend on the men's side it still is really damning. Those fans missed a thrilling game although it didn't go Duke's way.

UCLA is understandable given the location and all the options that might be happening although disappointing.

I think this tiny sample size is highly suggestive of the opportunities and obstacles faced in broadening exposure, attendance, and engagement with the women's game.

One thing the numbers do not measure is intensity. Even though I think the Husky attendance at Gampel was a sellout the intensity and engagement of those fans really magnified the numbers.

 

[GamecockFam]

Maryland must boost their numbers during the regular season or something lol because I could’ve sworn the attendance on Sunday against Arizona was just as high as the Iowa game at least.

Unless they’re counting tickets purchased vs. actual attendance.

I know a lot of teams like Va Tech, Iowa, Utah & Indiana attendance increased for the NCAA tourney but it’s weird how Tennessee, SC & Maryland’s attendance dropped considerably.

Could it have some to do with the allotments?

 

[The deacon]

I just can’t get past those Duke numbers..

You are hosting at home with a shot at a sweet 16 and only can muster just 2,000 a game? With the 2nd round one being even less. I get it’s a Monday but still…

UCLAs isn’t much better either

No explanation for UCLA other than what azfan offered, SECbbfan24, but at least part of an explanation for Duke, Notre Dame, Villanova and Stanford could be that their student populations are much lower than all the other schools listed. There might be other issues, but that would make sense.

I certainly understand the motivation for the Huskies to play at Gampel, but it would've been interesting to see if UConn would've sold out the XL Center for Vermont and Baylor.

Thanks, DefenseBB, for the info... 'tis interesting stuff.

 

[BruinGold]

No explanation for UCLA other than what azfan offered, SECbbfan24, but at least part of an explanation for Duke, Notre Dame, Villanova and Stanford could be that their student populations are much lower than all the other schools listed. There might be other issues, but that would make sense.

I certainly understand the motivation for the Huskies to play at Gampel, but it would've been interesting to see if UConn would've sold out the XL Center for Vermont and Baylor.

Thanks, DefenseBB, for the info... 'tis interesting stuff.

UCLA really didn't get any students because it is Finals Week here. Also, the Men's team playing reasonably close by at the SAME TIME as the women's team on Saturday certainly didn't help. That said, UCLA (and USC) will always have lower attendance than the strength of their programs would suggest. There really are so many other things that capture people's attention here. Azfan nails it. I showed up, though!

As an aside, that's why you shouldn't start new sports leagues in major cities with existing big pro/college teams. You will be much more likely to have success if you start your "Professional Team Handball" league in places like Bakersfield and Santa Fe.

 

[Bone Dog]

Maryland must boost their numbers during the regular season or something lol because I could’ve sworn the attendance on Sunday against Arizona was just as high as the Iowa game at least.

Unless they’re counting tickets purchased vs. actual attendance.

I know a lot of teams like Va Tech, Iowa, Utah & Indiana attendance increased for the NCAA tourney but it’s weird how Tennessee, SC & Maryland’s attendance dropped considerably.

College Park is within an easy drive of 3 metropolitan areas and it’s a major draw for the area. There’s no other interesting college team there now that Georgetown is no longer exciting.

 

[tigers4ever]

I know I could look it up, but anybody know generally how these numbers compare to the mbb numbers? I know they play at neutral sites but still interested in the comparison.

 

[TheFarmFan]

One thing almost all of the top attended sites have in common is very little else to do there. Shocking that there's competing sources of entertainment in LA, the Bay Area, the Research Triangle, Philly, and Austin. I'll confess I'm pretty surprised the folks in South Bend didn't turn out better, though...

 

[Phil]

The Tennessee numbers are easy to explain. (I'm basing this on research I did several years ago but think it's likely to still apply) The Tennessee athletic department engages in aggressive and creative ticket sales promotions. This includes discounted multi-game packages and offers such as 2 for 1 tickets. In the latter case, I suspect there are boo-hoo take advantage of the two-for-one sale and invite a friend but if the friend doesn't show up it still counts as a ticket sale even though it won't result in a turnstile count. Tennessee use to report both sales and turnstile counts. When I was researching this I found many examples where the ticket sale count exceeded the turnstile count significantly, sometimes by several thousands. I'm not expressing this as a criticism, I commend the athletic department for trying innovative approaches to encourage participation, that their high ported attendance during the regular season is somewhat inflated. The tournament games are run by the NCAA which does not do similar promotions or giveaways, and so the lower number reflect the people willing to pay full freight and show up for postseason games.

 

[DefenseBB]

I know I could look it up, but anybody know generally how these numbers compare to the mbb numbers? I know they play at neutral sites but still interested in the comparison.

The numbers are less than 50% of the Men's numbers as virtually all the Men's neutral court games are in NBA sized arena's. Here is a sampling of 8 of these regions over the weekend:
17,770
14,010
19,229
16,806
19,566
15,650 (UCLA did not sell out in Sacramento, so again, why is the NCAA forcing games in this region if they don't sell out????)
17,150
16,796

Bottom line is WCBB has come a long way BUT still has a long way to go to match anything that the Men's game is doing, which, frankly may never occur and that is OK. I like the current trend and the fact the game is still growing.

 

[Phil]

I am happy that the aggregate attendance numbers are up, but I'm taken aback by some of the numbers at the lower end of the hosting schools. What on earth is going on at Duke? UCLA doesn't stunned me as they haven't very supportive. I heard it's due to the proliferation of alternatives but I don't know whether that's the full story. Notre Dame surprises me a bit, I thought they had a rather fan base, but maybe I've given too much weight to attorney number of vocal fans. Villanova is suffering from the fact that it's a small school while inventing decent program, absent Maddy they haven't really been a top-tier program so this is new to them. Stanford should be embarrassed. They used to have a active fan club but those days may be behind us.

I'm going to throw out a proposal which I don't expect to get enthusiastic support but I'd be interested in hearing the reaction. While I know some fans grumble that it ought to be neutral sites, and that's a good long-term goal is not a feasible current goal. Let's remember that whether we like it or not, allowing teams to host as opposed to neutral sites is a recognition that it's important to have fans in the seats. While allowing the top team to host as an interesting wrinkle to regular-season performance, if you reach the top 16 based on performance but like Duke can't put any fans in the seats maybe we ought to rethink who should get rewarded with hosting.

What if the NCAA to say we are going to award hosting sites, starting with the top teams in order, and award to those teams who commit to purchasing at least 8000 tickets. If you can resell 8000 tickets or more this cost you nothing. If you don't think you can sell 8000 tickets you have to absorb the cost of the difference. Six teams had over 8000 tickets sold and would be perfectly happy with this arrangement. Utah would find themselves on the hook for hundred and 50 seats, and would probably find that a trivial expense for the benefits of hosting.

If one or more of the top 16 teams declines, then the offer goes out to the five seeds. This year, That's Iowa State, Oklahoma, Washington state, and Louisville. I don't know what Iowa States attendance was this year but the coach is very active promotionally so my guess is he would be willing to make the guarantee to get a hosting option.

There would obviously be some details to work out. What if so many top seeds declined that going to the five seeds doesn't go far enough you keep down the list? What if Villanova makes the case that this is an unfair financial burden for small school?

 

[LowkeyX]

Notre Dame surprises me a bit, I thought they had a rather fan base

I think their fan base declined after those 2 losing seasons in the 2019-2020 & 2020-2021. They returned to a good program last season with Miles & Citron so I expect their attendance to rise next season. They also had a few sellouts this season, UConn and Duke games, but it’ll be interesting to see if they can pull in big crowds regularly like they used to.

Villanova is suffering from the fact that it's a small school while inventing decent program, absent Maddy they haven't really been a top-tier program so this is new to them.

Villanova’s home arena capacity is 6,500 so they actually pulled decent crowds considering the size of the arena. 4,000+ is about 60% full so I bet it was loud in there.

 

[visitingcock]

Could it have some to do with the allotments?

That plus the fact that neither of our opponents moved the needle of fan interest. The only fun in 30+ point wins is watching the deep bench for a few minutes. ( Olivia hit a three!). Still, 10-11,000 is nothing to sneeze at.

Greenville will be a different story!

 

[bballnut90]

I think their fan base declined after those 2 losing seasons in the 2019-2020 & 2020-2021. They returned to a good program last season with Miles & Citron so I expect their attendance to rise next season. They also had a few sellouts this season, UConn and Duke games, but it’ll be interesting to see if they can pull in big crowds regularly like they used to.

Villanova’s home arena capacity is 6,500 so they actually pulled decent crowds considering the size of the arena. 4,000+ is about 60% full so I bet it was loud in there.

Villanova’s round 2 tickets were sold out day of (couldn’t get any online).

 

[Phil]

Villanova’s round 2 tickets were sold out day of (couldn’t get any online).

So why was the attendance 4361, that's way below sold out.

 

[LowkeyX]

Villanova’s round 2 tickets were sold out day of (couldn’t get any online).

Oh I believe it. Weird how the announced attendance was 4,361 . Maybe the NCAA are the fibbers.

Another clear example is last year’s Iowa State 1st & 2nd round numbers: 5,546 vs UT Arlington & 6,283 vs Georgia. They averaged well over 10K fans in the regular season so why would the drop off be so significant during the NCAAT

 

[TC22]

Ok, the numbers are in (mostly anyway, as UCLA did not disclose their 1st round session attendance ) I have listed each round, the two session average, the '23 season average and the season average rank. I sorted by the 2 round average. Iowa led the way and was second behind SC during the Season of the 16 hosts. SC was 3rd as hosts but led the 16 during the season-Was SC on spring break? Odd they didn't have more fans. I have also highlighted the 9 schools that hosted this year and last year and listed the 2 round average from last year. All 9 schools showed an increase this year over last year. KUDOS to all!
The pleasant observation is the big jump in the tournament games for Virginia Tech and Utah over their season averages. Overall, I think the NCAA is doing the right thing in having the top 16 host to get the arenas filled with fans. Also all the other sports host the opening rounds at the better seeded schools so this is consistent. Only MCBB is totally neutral site for all their rounds.

I am a season ticket holder at SC and also attended both tournament games. During the season we sell out the lower bowl of an 18,000+ arena. I am guestimating that’s @10,000+. You add to that people who buy single game tickets and that’s where our reg season attendance comes from (12,900). We had 2 sellouts (18,000+) during the season which were averaged in there as well.

The schools in our bracket were Marquette, S Fla, and Norfolk State. They brought very few fans. I thought 10,000+ was great turnout. Our games were on Friday at 1 pm and Sunday at 2.

 

[TC22]

That plus the fact that neither of our opponents moved the needle of fan interest. The only fun in 30+ point wins is watching the deep bench for a few minutes. ( Olivia hit a three!). Still, 10-11,000 is nothing to sneeze at.

Greenville will be a different story!

In the Greenville 1 regional they added more seats available for the Saturday games. They have the end “zones” closed off for the other games. If S.C. wins that Sunday game Monday game May sell out.

 

[Phil]

Oh I believe it. Weird how the announced attendance was 4,361 . Maybe the NCAA are the fibbers.

Another clear example is last year’s Iowa State 1st & 2nd round numbers: 5,546 vs UT Arlington & 6,283 vs Georgia. They averaged well over 10K fans in the regular season so why would the drop off be so significant during the NCAAT

The WBCA had a special half-day marketing session at their annual convention a few years ago. Bill Fennelly was one of the featured speakers. Iowa State has an impressive marketing campaign, but some of the initiatives do not translate into postseason attendance. I don't recall the specific initiatives, so I will illustrate from some I know are done at Tennessee, I suspect that Iowa State does similar things. Tennessee would have special offers such as a two for one deal, or set up a special rate for a group of six games which might include one dollar tickets. Those translate into increase ticket sales, but not always increased fannies in the seats. I don't know whether Iowa states reported attendance is ticket sales or turnstile counts, but those numbers can be very different. The key point is that the NCAA doesn't engage in those types of offers, so a regular-season game might have increased attendance due to some promotion, but those promotions don't apply to postseason. (An obvious argument is that perhaps the NCAA should engage in those types of promotions but the fact is they don't). I applaud the marketing gimmicks, but a mild irony is that the team's most successful with marketing gimmicks during regular season might see the biggest drop off for postseason attendance.