Attendance

4,612 Views | 58 Replies | Last: 5 days ago by Shocky1
stu
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to wifeisafurd • 1:19p, 11/25/25
wifeisafurd said:
So someone, make the argument for investing in Cal men's basketball.

I have two arguments:

1) If you're going to do something then do it right. I'd rather have no men's basketball team than the embarrassments we had under Jones and Fox.

2) Not everything needs to make money. For example, I doubt the undergrad Physics program makes money but the University would be much worse without it.
Reply Quote
2
BearlyCareAnymore
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to stu • 3:40p, 11/25/25
stu said:
wifeisafurd said:
So someone, make the argument for investing in Cal men's basketball.

I have two arguments:

1) If you're going to do something then do it right. I'd rather have no men's basketball team than the embarrassments we had under Jones and Fox.

2) Not everything needs to make money. For example, I doubt the undergrad Physics program makes money but the University would be much worse without it.

#2 is an argument that has to stop. The point of the UC system is to provide a college education to the young adults of California. Your argument is like saying I went to the barber shop and paid $20 for a hair cut and I didn't get a haircut plus my money back so I lost $20. Academic programs are what the state, and student tuition pay for, supplemented by donors. Sports is not the core product so it needs to either make money or it needs to provide value to the university commensurate with the amount the university spends.

But true, it doesn't need to necessarily need to make money if it provides some value for the money spent. Here are some issues I see:

The student community doesn't appear to see the value to them in that they won't vote to add a fee to their tuition in support of athletics as some other schools have done.

The donor community doesn't appear to see ENOUGH value in that they don't provide enough donations to cover the loss.

The market doesn't appear to see ENOUGH value in that ticket sales even in the time of success do not cover the cost of success. This has always been an issue with basketball. If you look at what our ticket sales have been at peak, they do not pay for what it would take in added coaches salary, NIL, and other support to be competitive at that level.

So, paying for the program means the chancellor taking money from all of those buckets that those people chose not to give and use his discretion to divert the money from what they did pay for because we agree that the chancellor should have the ability to use discretionary funds for things he thinks benefit the university.

When it comes to athletics in general, the last financial statement we have is fiscal year 2024 which is the last year in the Pac-12. So now we have less money coming in and higher expenses. That year, we lost $67M in operating expenses. That bakes in all the revenue including donations. Is the athletic department worth that? I don't think so. The bulk of that is not providing good PR and is essentially benefitting a handful of students and their families and friends because no one else cares.

Basketball lost $4.6M that year, but let's be honest, it's more than that. $23M in athletic department losses are non-program specific and obviously a portion of that goes to support each sport. But let's say it is $5M. Let's be honest, Cal needs to net spend $10M more to have "if you are going to do something do it right" result.

So WIAF - I really can't argue to invest in basketball as I've been saying for years that it is a money loser and I don't think the value adds up. That being said, I'd argue that basketball brings more value than everything else (other than football) that we are probably spending at least $45M on, so my best argument is that we should cut everything else other than swimming and chuck the investment on football and basketball before we think of restricting basketball's investment. It's sort of like saying I don't want to spend $1,000 for one fancy watch that works because I don't need to know the time that badly, but I'd rather do that then spend $5,000 on 20 cheap ass watches that don't work.

Reply Quote
1
Bobodeluxe
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to wifeisafurd • 7:54p, 11/25/25
wifeisafurd said:
There is a problem with men's college basketball at many schools where the numbers just don't add up. Women's basketball used to be a big money loser and men's made some minor surplus. Women's basketball programs are doing better (way less costs than in men's basketball, similar NIL, and improved attendance), and men's basketball is now a money loser at most schools.

The average attendance in men's games for Division 1 has dropped over the last decade from 5,325 to 4,354. Total paid attendance is down accordingly. NIL for men's basketball lags way behind football as most schools, The product with the NBA rules and development leagues is not as good (though at the top level of men's basketball talent has consolidated and the product is actually quite good). But there is no business model making business sense for investment with respect to men's basketball at most schools, other than some branding or prestige factor. It is basically the same as any non-revenue sport as long as the costs remain so high. Women's basketball is a different story.

So someone, make the argument for investing in Cal men's basketball.

Game scheduling sucks, both times and days.

length of games suck, tv timeouts and replay ineptitude are to blame.

not enough volume in the piped in garbage and the phony hyper-enthusiasm from the mic clowns.

awful food at ridiculous prices

othewise, it's a great experience, almost magical, in fact.
Reply Quote
4
socaltownie
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:46a, 11/27/25
Cant argue. Cal has always has at best a meh relationship with basketball compared to its feeling toward football. One of the reasons i remain all in for the kicker is that apparently that isnt true for at least one donor.
Reply Quote
oskidunker
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bobodeluxe • 11:50a, 11/27/25
Bobodeluxe said:
wifeisafurd said:
There is a problem with men's college basketball at many schools where the numbers just don't add up. Women's basketball used to be a big money loser and men's made some minor surplus. Women's basketball programs are doing better (way less costs than in men's basketball, similar NIL, and improved attendance), and men's basketball is now a money loser at most schools.

The average attendance in men's games for Division 1 has dropped over the last decade from 5,325 to 4,354. Total paid attendance is down accordingly. NIL for men's basketball lags way behind football as most schools, The product with the NBA rules and development leagues is not as good (though at the top level of men's basketball talent has consolidated and the product is actually quite good). But there is no business model making business sense for investment with respect to men's basketball at most schools, other than some branding or prestige factor. It is basically the same as any non-revenue sport as long as the costs remain so high. Women's basketball is a different story.

So someone, make the argument for investing in Cal men's basketball.

Game scheduling sucks, both times and days.

length of games suck, tv timeouts and replay ineptitude are to blame.

not enough volume in the piped in garbage and the phony hyper-enthusiasm from the mic clowns.

awful food at ridiculous prices

othewise, it's a great experience, almost magical, in fact.


There is now ice cream at the downstairs concession stand. Otherwise! I would never buy anything. Hot dogs are half as big and $7.
Bring back It’s It’s to Haas Pavillion!
Reply Quote
1
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:32p, 11/27/25
The MBB program might be the one program that could actually benefit from going to the P12 to the ACC. Duke and Carolina are a major upgrade over Oregon and Washington.
Reply Quote
1
bearsandgiants
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:58p, 11/27/25
Maybe have an offer where you get free admission to the men's game with your paid women's ticket. But really. They've been winning. The men haven't, till now. Attendance will skyrocket if we keep ourselves in the tourney hunt every year.
Reply Quote
2
calumnus
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 8:06p, 11/27/25
Cal88 said:
The MBB program might be the one program that could actually benefit from going to the P12 to the ACC. Duke and Carolina are a major upgrade over Oregon and Washington.

Plus Virginia, NC State, Syracuse, Louisville, Georgia Tech….
Reply Quote
1
CALiforniALUM
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:32a, 11/28/25
I heard anecdotally from a group of friends that single game basketball ticket prices jumped way up this year. So much so that the friends decided after many years of going to games to not this year.

It seems like a relatively easy exercise to figure out a ticket pricing scheme coupled with a promotional incentive to get butts in the seats every game. The value of the product is not zero, but it also may be at an all time low. I can't believe for a second that there isn't a different pricing model that fills the house and produces the same amount of revenue that the current system provides with 1,000 in attendance each game.
Reply Quote
2
RedlessWardrobe
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:52a, 11/28/25
"It seems like a relatively easy exercise to figure out a ticket pricing scheme coupled with a promotional incentive to get butts in the seats every game."

Agreed. But Cal Marketing and athletic department appears to be incapable of figuring it out.
Reply Quote
4
smh
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to RedlessWardrobe • 9:18a, 11/28/25
RedlessWardrobe said:
"It seems like a relatively easy exercise to figure out a ticket pricing scheme coupled with a promotional incentive to get butts in the seats every game."

trivial pursuit: ticket pricing was never a factor in the decades we enjoyed our men and women's season tickets; but don't forget the required bear backer donation is/was also a sizable amount.
# worth every penny
# thiings change
Reply Quote
1
LudwigsFountain
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CALiforniALUM • 10:25a, 11/28/25
CALiforniALUM said:
I heard anecdotally from a group of friends that single game basketball ticket prices jumped way up this year. So much so that the friends decided after many years of going to games to not this year.

It seems like a relatively easy exercise to figure out a ticket pricing scheme coupled with a promotional incentive to get butts in the seats every game. The value of the product is not zero, but it also may be at an all time low. I can't believe for a second that there isn't a different pricing model that fills the house and produces the same amount of revenue that the current system provides with 1,000 in attendance each game.

I was thinking of taking by grandsons to the upcoming Saturday afternoon game with UOP. I usually treat them to nice center court seats. Tickets were $65, which was a bit of a shock, There were very few ticket, which is confusing given this topic. Are there that many season ticket holders and they're not showing up?
Reply Quote
2
oskidunker
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to LudwigsFountain • 11:12a, 11/28/25
LudwigsFountain said:
CALiforniALUM said:
I heard anecdotally from a group of friends that single game basketball ticket prices jumped way up this year. So much so that the friends decided after many years of going to games to not this year.

It seems like a relatively easy exercise to figure out a ticket pricing scheme coupled with a promotional incentive to get butts in the seats every game. The value of the product is not zero, but it also may be at an all time low. I can't believe for a second that there isn't a different pricing model that fills the house and produces the same amount of revenue that the current system provides with 1,000 in attendance each game.

I was thinking of taking by grandsons to the upcoming Saturday afternoon game with UOP. I usually treat them to nice center court seats. Tickets were $65, which was a bit of a shock, There were very few ticket, which is confusing given this topic. Are there that many season ticket holders and they're not showing up?


Many.
Bring back It’s It’s to Haas Pavillion!
Reply Quote
bearister
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearlyCareAnymore • 12:03p, 11/28/25
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside

“I love Cal deeply, by the way, what are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
Reply Quote
1
2 edits
Big C
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 3:39p, 11/28/25
Cal88 said:
The MBB program might be the one program that could actually benefit from going to the P12 to the ACC. Duke and Carolina are a major upgrade over Oregon and Washington.

Weren't (F)UCLA and Arizona the analog to Duke and Carolina? Roughly comparable, to me... probably not to Dick Vitale.
Reply Quote
1 edit
HoopDreams
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:04p, 11/28/25
Duke and UNC are big names and should draw some casual fans

But UCLA is a true rival and many students are from Southern California and probably applied to ucla whether that was their first choice or otherwise

For me beating a storied program like Kidd/Murray did when they beat defending national champion Duke in the NCAA was glorious and will always be an all-time great win, but beating UCLA in basketball is very sweet too
Reply Quote
3
Alkiadt
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to wifeisafurd • 8:14p, 11/28/25
wifeisafurd said:
There is a problem with men's college basketball at many schools where the numbers just don't add up. Women's basketball used to be a big money loser and men's made some minor surplus. Women's basketball programs are doing better (way less costs than in men's basketball, similar NIL, and improved attendance), and men's basketball is now a money loser at most schools.

The average attendance in men's games for Division 1 has dropped over the last decade from 5,325 to 4,354. Total paid attendance is down accordingly. NIL for men's basketball lags way behind football as most schools, The product with the NBA rules and development leagues is not as good (though at the top level of men's basketball talent has consolidated and the product is actually quite good). But there is no business model making business sense for investment with respect to men's basketball at most schools, other than some branding or prestige factor. It is basically the same as any non-revenue sport as long as the costs remain so high. Women's basketball is a different story.

So someone, make the argument for investing in Cal men's basketball.


Women's Basketball at Cal loses the most money of any program in the department.
Reply Quote
4
calumnus
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Alkiadt • 11:27p, 11/28/25
Alkiadt said:
wifeisafurd said:
There is a problem with men's college basketball at many schools where the numbers just don't add up. Women's basketball used to be a big money loser and men's made some minor surplus. Women's basketball programs are doing better (way less costs than in men's basketball, similar NIL, and improved attendance), and men's basketball is now a money loser at most schools.

The average attendance in men's games for Division 1 has dropped over the last decade from 5,325 to 4,354. Total paid attendance is down accordingly. NIL for men's basketball lags way behind football as most schools, The product with the NBA rules and development leagues is not as good (though at the top level of men's basketball talent has consolidated and the product is actually quite good). But there is no business model making business sense for investment with respect to men's basketball at most schools, other than some branding or prestige factor. It is basically the same as any non-revenue sport as long as the costs remain so high. Women's basketball is a different story.

So someone, make the argument for investing in Cal men's basketball.


Women's Basketball at Cal loses the most money of any program in the department.

I'd love to see the accounting on that. Then an incremental analysis.

Also, because of Title IX, every men's scholarship needs to support an equivalent women's scholarship.

The tough issue with the ACC is travel costs. That is why we should look at minimizing the number of teams in the ACC to the minimum required (football, men's and women's basketball and one other women's sport) and have the other teams compete in a West Coast conference like the Big West.

Reply Quote
3
RedlessWardrobe
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Alkiadt • 7:28a, 11/29/25
Alkiadt said:
wifeisafurd said:
There is a problem with men's college basketball at many schools where the numbers just don't add up. Women's basketball used to be a big money loser and men's made some minor surplus. Women's basketball programs are doing better (way less costs than in men's basketball, similar NIL, and improved attendance), and men's basketball is now a money loser at most schools.

The average attendance in men's games for Division 1 has dropped over the last decade from 5,325 to 4,354. Total paid attendance is down accordingly. NIL for men's basketball lags way behind football as most schools, The product with the NBA rules and development leagues is not as good (though at the top level of men's basketball talent has consolidated and the product is actually quite good). But there is no business model making business sense for investment with respect to men's basketball at most schools, other than some branding or prestige factor. It is basically the same as any non-revenue sport as long as the costs remain so high. Women's basketball is a different story.

So someone, make the argument for investing in Cal men's basketball.


Women's Basketball at Cal loses the most money of any program in the department.

Much of this problem could be solved if the Cal Marketing department could get their act together.
Reply Quote
3
Alkiadt
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to RedlessWardrobe • 7:38a, 11/29/25
RedlessWardrobe said:
Alkiadt said:
wifeisafurd said:
There is a problem with men's college basketball at many schools where the numbers just don't add up. Women's basketball used to be a big money loser and men's made some minor surplus. Women's basketball programs are doing better (way less costs than in men's basketball, similar NIL, and improved attendance), and men's basketball is now a money loser at most schools.

The average attendance in men's games for Division 1 has dropped over the last decade from 5,325 to 4,354. Total paid attendance is down accordingly. NIL for men's basketball lags way behind football as most schools, The product with the NBA rules and development leagues is not as good (though at the top level of men's basketball talent has consolidated and the product is actually quite good). But there is no business model making business sense for investment with respect to men's basketball at most schools, other than some branding or prestige factor. It is basically the same as any non-revenue sport as long as the costs remain so high. Women's basketball is a different story.

So someone, make the argument for investing in Cal men's basketball.


Women's Basketball at Cal loses the most money of any program in the department.

Much of this problem could be solved if the Cal Marketing department could get their act together.

Agree. That applies to the whole program.
Reply Quote
3
Shocky1
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:06a, 11/29/25
alky, that's NOT gonna happen as alluded in my post above if the current co athletic ****tards (who spectacularly hired the unqualified markeisha everrett) jay & jenny are allowed by rich to hire the next marketing director which would basically be signing a death warrant to the cal basketball programs

winning is not gonna sell out haas pavilion in today's bay area marketspace, targeted marketing to students & a much younger fanbase including those that are not berkeley alums is the key to dramatically increasing attendance at the now cold & empty palace

all marketing efforts (which consist primarily of quickly deleted emails to football tix buyers) have been abject failures during the last decade by non marketing/innovative dumb zzzs which has resulted in no new younger fans & the current sr citizen fanbase rapidly aging out which has resulted in near zero energy on gamedays which negatively impacts recruiting & any donor interest in building the critically needed basketball only practice facility

https://instagr.am/p/DPH2d6GgN7R
Reply Quote
4 edits
RedlessWardrobe
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:45a, 11/29/25
Shocky is spot on. Look at the Valkyries first year. If the Cal marketing department had any kind of clue, one of the things they would be doing is reaching that fan base. Get those same people to a game at Haas. At that point those same folks will consider coming back considering:

Fraction of the price of a Valkyries game.
Although not pro, similiar product.
Cal WBB calendar season doesn't even conflict with the Valkyries!


No excuse to let this opportunity go by.
Reply Quote
4
Alkiadt
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Shocky1 • 8:54a, 11/29/25
Shocky1 said:
alky, that's NOT gonna happen as alluded in my post above if the current co athletic ****tards (who spectacularly hired the unqualified markeisha everrett) jay & jenny are allowed by rich to hire the next marketing director which would basically be signing a death warrant to the cal basketball programs

winning is not gonna sell out haas pavilion in today's bay area marketspace, targeted marketing to students & a much younger fanbase including those that are not berkeley alums is the key to dramatically increasing attendance at the now cold & empty palace

all marketing efforts (which consist primarily of quickly deleted emails to football tix buyers) have been abject failures during the last decade by non marketing/innovative dumb zzzs which has resulted in no new younger fans & the current sr citizen fanbase rapidly aging out which has resulted in near zero energy on gamedays which negatively impacts recruiting & any donor interest in building the critically needed basketball only practice facility

https://instagr.am/p/DPH2d6GgN7R


I never said anything other than marketing needs to improve.
It's obvious new leadership is needed. I doubt either of that duo is on staff when their contracts end in a year.
Reply Quote
2
Shocky1
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:26a, 11/29/25
^ and that would be a good thing, time for rich to throw out the trash!!
Reply Quote
1
Refresh
Page 2 of 2 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.