PDA

View Full Version : Pacers are 26th in Attendace



MillerTime
01-06-2009, 03:17 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/attendance?year=2009

I cant believe Raps are ahead of Boston

Dr. Awesome
01-06-2009, 03:21 PM
Loud crowds = momentum = more wins. :-\

Sollozzo
01-06-2009, 03:24 PM
I cant believe Raps are ahead of Boston

The Raptors have a larger arena than Boston. Boston is filling to 100% and can't do anymore.

MillerTime
01-06-2009, 03:26 PM
If you look at percentages, then Lakers lead the league http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/attendance?sort=all_pct&year=2009&seasonType=2

duke dynamite
01-06-2009, 04:28 PM
YAY we aren't last!!!

BRushWithDeath
01-06-2009, 04:29 PM
If the Pacers average over 13,000 a night I can run a 4.1 40 and bench 500. I've been to every game. There have maybe been 2 games with 13,000+.

Kuq_e_Zi91
01-06-2009, 04:35 PM
I'm pretty sure we were higher earlier in the season...

Unclebuck
01-06-2009, 04:36 PM
If the Pacers average over 13,000 a night I can run a 4.1 40 and bench 500. I've been to every game. There have maybe been 2 games with 13,000+.

Yes, but the NBA only counts tickets sold and distributed in the attendance figures. No shows or tickets not used are never factored into any NBA teams figures

D23
01-06-2009, 05:15 PM
If you look at percentages, then Lakers lead the league http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/attendance?sort=all_pct&year=2009&seasonType=2

Actually that's total % of attendance for all games, including road games. The first PCT column is the one you should look at for percentage of seats filled at your home court. Dallas is, by no surprise, heads and shoulders above everyone else at 104%. What do they do, pack people into the vending booths?

D23
01-06-2009, 05:24 PM
An interesting side note - if you go up to the URL of the page, you'll see a "year=2009" string in there. You can manually change the 2009 to any year going as far back as 1994, whereas the drop-down box on the page only allows you to go back to '02-'03. Look at some of the crowds the Charlotte Hornets were pulling in, back from 1994-1998 :eek: It seems so long ago...

MiaDragon
01-06-2009, 05:29 PM
I dont see how Miami is as high as they are, they cant give away seats, I keep getting spamed for $5 seats PLUS food and drinks.

Brad8888
01-06-2009, 06:06 PM
Are there any actual statistics kept that we fans have access to for the average price per ticket that is actually being paid for the tickets sold that make up the "attendance" figures? With the huge discounts that a significant amount of our current actual game attendees have been receiving, our attendance figures surely have been skewed a fair amount to the upside when compared to other franchises to account for us ranking as high as 26th.

How widespread are these deep discount programs throughout the league, anyway? Also, if they are widespread, what are other franchises doing for their season ticket holders to make up the drastic price reduction difference in any meaningful fashion? As a full season ticket holder for several seasons, I am stunned at the amount I have overpaid for the seats I have been contractually obligated to, and the lack of any meaningful response from my ticket rep regarding any possibility of refunds or anything else that is not tied to my needing to spend even more money than the $96 per seat that I have paid for club level for three years now (I was one of the last idiots who committed to the mandatory, at that time, three year contract required for club seats in an effort to avoid the lower bowl section 16 $130+ per seat pricing).

Without a significant olive branch (big price break or far more valuable perks) being offered by the franchise to its season ticket holders, I am sure that very few will renew, and the corporate accounts will reduce their commitments in favor of taking a chance on getting cheap tickets instead of being soaked up front for nearly as many unused tickets. Tough economic times affecting businesses encourage them to cut costs, client and employee entertainment being one of the non-core expenses that many are likely to cut.

I believe, in future years, without significant changes on the sidelines, on the court, and with respect to treatment of customers, we are in danger of either a move or being part of a long needed reduction in the total number of NBA franchises. How long the Simon's, or anyone else for that matter, are willing to absorb both the loss in current revenue and its associated loss of franchise valuation that I assume to be occurring is, I feel, coming up in the fairly near future.

Sorry about the rant.

Naptown_Seth
01-06-2009, 07:18 PM
Dallas is, by no surprise, heads and shoulders above everyone else at 104%. What do they do, pack people into the vending booths?
Sounds like Cube should be expecting a visit from the fire marshall. :D

I hate Indy "fans", ie not you guys who are attending these games (in-towners of course). With the prices they ran out and the exciting games this team has had, even in losses, there is no good excuse not to enjoy some evenings with the Pacers. The fickleness is embarrassing.

"Oh, $10 is just too much, I have a family and a giant pickup truck to fill with gas". :mad:

Naptown_Seth
01-06-2009, 07:23 PM
An interesting side note - if you go up to the URL of the page, you'll see a "year=2009" string in there. You can manually change the 2009 to any year going as far back as 1994, whereas the drop-down box on the page only allows you to go back to '02-'03. Look at some of the crowds the Charlotte Hornets were pulling in, back from 1994-1998 :eek: It seems so long ago...
I used to go to a few games when my dad still lived there. They had their top attendance banners hanging too. Didn't like the location of the Hive, wasn't a huge fan of the seat layout, but it was a decent place to see a game.

The point to take on that one is that they didn't lose a team on fan interest, they lost a team on George Shinn is a monster a'hole that the entire city wanted to see gone. They froze him out till he moved away. But if he had instead sold the team you'd still have the Charlotte Hornets going strong, including Hugo which was named after the hurricane that ripped through there early in the team's history.

Anthem
01-06-2009, 07:24 PM
YAY we aren't last!!!
:laugh: My thought as well.

jeffg-body
01-07-2009, 12:17 AM
Most people would agree with me that it is gonna take some time to get the fans back into the excitement known as Pacer Nation. It isn't gonna happen overnight and my beliefs are that this year is the expiremental and unloading players year.

In the 1st year who cares about the wins and losses. Our guys should be looking for how well is this new group meshing with each other and becoming a team, looking at the development of our young core, looking to identify a solid leader of this team, which Danny has done well. And the lqast duty this year should be to get the FO to make some moves to get us cap friendly where we could bring in 2 descent players (one great at specific area) and one who is a scorer that can play some defense.

Year two of the expirement should be focusing on tightening the mesh of the core players to where they all know each others strengths and weaknesses. The second priority would be to try to get our draftees and any FA we can buy into the big picture into the program we run and building a ton of rapport with the vets here, kind of like when Al stayed at Antonio Davis house his first year. The last thing in this year is developing that guy who is going to be our leader on the floor in a dominating fashion. This is the year that I believe we make a playoff contender. From the FO standpoint is to continue to trim payroll if we canto where we may be in a position to go after an elite player and be able to show them that we have a young core that he could lead. We would probably be bounced in round one or two.

Year three has us looking with great team chemistry, a solid young core, a group of tested veterans, and a deep bench to go to when we need it the most.

I may be crazy, but it just may work.

Fool
01-07-2009, 12:20 PM
"Oh, $10 is just too much, I have a family and a giant pickup truck to fill with gas". :mad:


I'm sure many will rally around insulting families for not spending more money on discretionary things like Pacers games.

Unclebuck
01-07-2009, 12:54 PM
I watch a lot of games on NBA League Pass and a lot of teams are running ticket specials like the Pacers. Probably 10 franchises or so are doing similar things as the Pacers.

On the actual figures, I wouldn't pay too much attention to the % - as the capacity seems like fuzzy math to me

count55
01-07-2009, 01:16 PM
Sounds like Cube should be expecting a visit from the fire marshall. :D

I hate Indy "fans", ie not you guys who are attending these games (in-towners of course). With the prices they ran out and the exciting games this team has had, even in losses, there is no good excuse not to enjoy some evenings with the Pacers. The fickleness is embarrassing.

"Oh, $10 is just too much, I have a family and a giant pickup truck to fill with gas". :mad:

I never agree with the notion of "good" fans vs. "bad" fans. It's silly. It's like me asking somebody, "Why don't you like Dave Matthews more?" or "Why isn't blue your favorite color?"

This is a personal taste and preference thing, not a social or moral obligation. I support the Pacers as best I can because I like them, but I can't expect others to do the same just because they live in the same city.

The whole "our fans are better than your fans" is one of the silliest and most pointless of arguments on the planet.

beast23
01-07-2009, 01:32 PM
I watch a lot of games on NBA League Pass and a lot of teams are running ticket specials like the Pacers. Probably 10 franchises or so are doing similar things as the Pacers.

On the actual figures, I wouldn't pay too much attention to the % - as the capacity seems like fuzzy math to meMost economists are stating that things will "get much worse before the get better". Unemployment in Indiana is on the rise, although our unemployment is not as bad as the national average (yet).

Many season ticket holders as well as the suite owners made their commitments for 2008-2009 before things started getting "really bad".

Suite owners have cut back signficantly on food, alcohol and dessert carts. At this time, I do know of suite holders that will not be renewing next year.

The biggest problem that I see is that the revenues are down for the Pacers, just like most other businesses, but the expense of salaries can't be signficantly reduced through layoffs since total player salaries comprise most of that expense and will probaby remain near the cap.

What this means is that, despite the number of fans we might see in the stands, the Pacers are having a miserable year financially, and next season will most certainly be even worse. Season ticket sales will probaby decline and the Pacers may have several suites that are not leased.

From an economic standpoint, I would think this is the worst state this franchise has been in since the telethon.

So, posted attendance really doesn't mean anything to me. I fear that all those no shows will translate into signficanly lower tickets sold next season.

If so, we are in greater danger of losing our team than we have ever been.

Justin Tyme
01-07-2009, 02:22 PM
How many NBA teams has an increase in this years attendance over last years? My guess is less than a 1/3, and the Pacers are one of those that is up in attendance.

RaptorsFan
01-07-2009, 02:34 PM
Toronto doesnt have much more max capacity then Boston, we just fill the damn house and are in the top 5 for loudest arena's and in the playoffs the roof comes off baby!!!

MiaDragon
01-07-2009, 02:52 PM
Toronto doesnt have much more max capacity then Boston, we just fill the damn house and are in the top 5 for loudest arena's and in the playoffs the roof comes off baby!!!

:hmm:

Boston Gardens 14,890

Air Canada Centre 19,800

count55
01-07-2009, 02:52 PM
Of the thirty teams, seven (7) have increased average attendance over last year and four (4) have remained flat. (The four remaining flat, BOS, DET, LAL, & POR, are presumably at capacity.)

Of the 7 teams that have increased attendance, the largest (naturally) is Oklahoma City, who jumped by 5,190 per game after moving from Seattle. Only two others have increased by more than 1,000: New Orleans (2,775) and Indiana (1,579).

Of the 19 teams whose attendance has declined, only three (3) have seen declines of greater than 1,000 patrons: MIA (1,934), LAC (1,859), and SAC (1,792).

Of course, there are more Pacer seats being given away or sold at a deep discount, so it is unlikely that the revenue has increased (or even stayed flat). Also, as others have noted, it is impossible to count the no-shows at this point.

I am hopeful that more people are seeing the Pacers this year than last. I have been told many times by casual observers that they enjoy this new team and are willing to watch them more than in the past few years. However, they still don't expect a lot of wins, and this enhanced reputation probably has not translated into a greater willingness to spend money on them. This is complicated by how badly the economy has fallen off in the last few months.

count55
01-07-2009, 02:54 PM
:hmm:

Boston Gardens 14,890

Air Canada Centre 19,800

Of course, the Celtics play in TDBankNorth Garden, and have averaged 18,624 fans the last two years.

MiaDragon
01-07-2009, 02:55 PM
Of course, the Celtics play in TDBankNorth Garden, and have averaged 18,624 fans the last two years.

LMAO trying to do 3 things at once at work!!

count55
01-07-2009, 03:03 PM
LMAO trying to do 3 things at once at work!!

The answer's simple:

Put down the damn work!

Unclebuck
01-07-2009, 03:34 PM
One thing I'm very confident in saying is that there were many more no-shows last season than there has been this season. So I firmly believe more people have been at Conseco this season

Doddage
01-07-2009, 04:35 PM
Chicago? I guess that shows you the value of having a hometown player on your team...

count55
01-07-2009, 04:44 PM
Chicago? I guess that shows you the value of having a hometown player on your team...

...and the third largest metropolitan area by population, with more than 9.5 million "potential fans".

Sollozzo
01-07-2009, 05:16 PM
...and the third largest metropolitan area by population, with more than 9.5 million "potential fans".


Exactly. I've tried making this point a billion times on here...usually to no avail. But I'm very glad you brought it up.

Indianapolis might have a higher % of NBA fans than Chicago. But since Chicago has about 8 million more people in it's metro area, it's always going to be able to fill a 22,000 seat arena.

Conseco sits 18,345 people. Indy's metro area is 1,774,665. Thus, Conseco's seating capacity represents 1.03% of the Indy metro population.

If Chicago had an arena that represented 1.03% of it's metro population, then that arena would seat approximately 100,000 people.

Think the Windy city would sell that out every night?

This is why my blood boils when people call Indy a bandwagon fan base. Indy's no more bandwagon than any other place, but it has a tiny metro area compared to most big league cities. That's why the Pacers are taking a hit in attendance.

Does anyone honestly think the Knicks or Bulls have as many fans as they did in the 1990's? I sure as heck don't. But since New York and Chicago are gigantic, you're always going to be able to find 20,000 to find an arena. MSG sits about 1,000 more than Conseco, yet the Knicks have about 20 million more people to pull from.

Indy now has a larger NFL stadium than Da Bears do. Yet if the Colts suffer some blackouts in the post-Manning era, you'll have fans harping about how the fan base is fair weather while bringing up how loyal a fan base like Chicago is. It's not that they're anymore loyal, it's that they have millions of more fans to pull from.

If you took the current Indy fanbase and multiplied it by a number that put it equal to New York or Chicago, then the Pacers would sell out every game.

I'm not making excuses for the Pacers not selling out, I'm just using math/logic/common sense.

Unclebuck
01-07-2009, 05:24 PM
Adam I hear you loud and clear, but there are some other factors that work against your argument at least a little bit. I think it is also useful to look at the number of people within 30 minutes of the stadium or 60 minutes. My point is only this, sure Chicago has 8 million people, but how many of those 8 million live more than an hour away (consider the horrible traffic also) vs how many of the 1.7 M in Indy live more than an hour away. That might even the numbers quite a bit

Also many of the very large cities are very spread out and there is no sense of community where as the smaller cities the populace feel as one and all root for the home team. That us why for example smaller cities always get high local rationgs than larger cities.

Just throwing this out there for considersation

Sollozzo
01-07-2009, 05:39 PM
Adam I hear you loud and clear, but there are some other factors that work against your argument at least a little bit. I think it is also useful to look at the number of people within 30 minutes of the stadium or 60 minutes. My point is only this, sure Chicago has 8 million people, but how many of those 8 million live more than an hour away (consider the horrible traffic also) vs how many of the 1.7 M in Indy live more than an hour away. That might even the numbers quite a bit

Also many of the very large cities are very spread out and there is no sense of community where as the smaller cities the populace feel as one and all root for the home team. That us why for example smaller cities always get high local rationgs than larger cities.

Just throwing this out there for considersation


That's a good point, but you have to also consider that Chicago has a better mass transit system than Indianapolis does. If you live in the immediate city proper, you can most likely find mass transit to the game.

Same with New York. Staying with your point, it is certainly a pain to commute into Manhattan if you live outside of the 5 boroughs. But the 5 boroughs still represent 8 million people. And given New York's huge subway system, it is easy to commute into Manhattan if you live in Queens, Bronx, or Brooklyn.

Regardless, those 2 areas have a significantly larger base than Indy.

count55
01-07-2009, 05:48 PM
Adam I hear you loud and clear, but there are some other factors that work against your argument at least a little bit. I think it is also useful to look at the number of people within 30 minutes of the stadium or 60 minutes. My point is only this, sure Chicago has 8 million people, but how many of those 8 million live more than an hour away (consider the horrible traffic also) vs how many of the 1.7 M in Indy live more than an hour away. That might even the numbers quite a bit

Also many of the very large cities are very spread out and there is no sense of community where as the smaller cities the populace feel as one and all root for the home team. That us why for example smaller cities always get high local rationgs than larger cities.

Just throwing this out there for considersation

While this travel time may impact the number of people for season tickets, etc., the area still provides a much deeper well for single game tickets.

Also, I'm sure that the number of available significant corporate buyers in Chicago represents a substantial multiples of what Indy has to offer.

Naptown_Seth
01-07-2009, 06:17 PM
I'm sure many will rally around insulting families for not spending more money on discretionary things like Pacers games.
This implies that my quote suggests that these people aren't spending that money on other non-essentials, which in fact they are.

My point is that $10 per person for entertainment is about as cheap as it gets. I'm sorry that it sounded like I was saying "I can barely survive and do no fun things", I didn't mean it that way.

I mean those people that complain, fall back on family and gas, and then if you examine their actual spending you see massive lumps of crap spending on stuff as or more frivolous than a Pacers game.

These people think nothing of praising the Indians for their wonderful $10 seats and family atmosphere, and more importantly they will suddenly be able to afford to go to Pacers games when the team is favored to win it all (well, might take 2-3 years of this caliber of play, but eventually...).

If you can't afford it, okay. If you didn't like the guys in trouble, okay. But just stay consistent with that.


Indy lives off this Hoosiers rep and I'm just calling :bs: on it.



I will say this, I've noticed that a lot more of the fans I sit next to when I'm down low are really competent, quality fans. I like that aspect, I like that people getting down close actually appreciate the team and the game. Even as recent as 4-5 years ago a lot of the closer seats were filled with "hey look at me"s.

So maybe I like it more like this, more intimate and more involved with the team than when the bandwagon kicks in. I could get behind someone saying that the Pacers have 7-8,000 of the most die-hard fans than the state-wide Hoosiers image.

Naptown_Seth
01-07-2009, 06:26 PM
it is easy to commute into Manhattan if you live in Queens, Bronx, or Brooklyn.I've taken the subway to games in both NY and Chicago. It's not "easier" than driving to downtown from Geist area or Avon or even Shelbyville. It's also not really any cheaper either.

The Dodgers/Lakers have infamously always had crowds that get there late and leave early because of traffic, and as a former Houston resident I can tell you that I was ready to murder people after trying to get to some of the bigger Astros games.

So I think Buck is right that the big population thing cuts both ways. I'm more willing to concede the corporate aspect in big cities than the overall population aspect.

Plus we'd have to consider where the affluent population actually lives. NYers that flee to Connecticut aren't the same as some Joe 6 from the Bronx that can't afford the tix. Having a massive poor population within mass transit of a stadium doesn't really help you out much when it comes to selling tickets.

Seriously, who thinks the Sox are selling tons of tickets to people walking over from the projects just down the street, or that a good portion of the Yank's was pulled from the Bronx neighborhood around them.

I could quite literally get to a Colts game from Cincy as quickly as I could get to some of those Astros games living in Houston.

Sollozzo
01-07-2009, 10:15 PM
I've taken the subway to games in both NY and Chicago. It's not "easier" than driving to downtown from Geist area or Avon or even Shelbyville. It's also not really any cheaper either.

The Dodgers/Lakers have infamously always had crowds that get there late and leave early because of traffic, and as a former Houston resident I can tell you that I was ready to murder people after trying to get to some of the bigger Astros games.

So I think Buck is right that the big population thing cuts both ways. I'm more willing to concede the corporate aspect in big cities than the overall population aspect.

Plus we'd have to consider where the affluent population actually lives. NYers that flee to Connecticut aren't the same as some Joe 6 from the Bronx that can't afford the tix. Having a massive poor population within mass transit of a stadium doesn't really help you out much when it comes to selling tickets.

Seriously, who thinks the Sox are selling tons of tickets to people walking over from the projects just down the street, or that a good portion of the Yank's was pulled from the Bronx neighborhood around them.

I could quite literally get to a Colts game from Cincy as quickly as I could get to some of those Astros games living in Houston.

You're helping me prove my original point.

You're right, most Red Sox and Yankee fans come from the outlying areas...which was exactly what I was trying to hit on when I said that Indy had a tiny metro area compared to most professional sports cities in the US. Franchises depend on wealthy fans from suburbs to buy tickets, thus cities like Boston and New York have superior advantages to Indy since they literally have millions and millions more residents.

Sure, maybe it's hard for a lot of people in some of those cities to get to games. But at the end of the day, a city like Chicago still has 8 million more people in it's metro area than Indy. That's an overall advantage anyway you slice it. The Bulls, Knicks, and Lakers sell out most of their games for a reason.