The Intercollegiate Mens Lacrosse Coaches Association (IMLCA) recently published their White Paper regarding the decline in attendance at NCAA Championship Weekend in recent years.
The committee, which consisted of college administrators, a coach from each division, former NCAA committee members, a corporate leader and an IMLCA corporate partner, put forth issues it identified as having a negative influence on Championship Weekend attendance, and recommendations on how to improve on the trend.
Here, we take a look at their findings and explore their recommendations for improving the decline.
ATTENDANCE ISSUES
The paper begins with a review of attendance at Championship Weekend since 2003, when it was decided that college venues that had hosted the championships since their inception were no longer viable, given increased demand and the added strain on athletic department staffs. According to the IMLCA, campus administrators had little interest in hosting an event on a holiday weekend after staffs had supported their own universities teams every weekend for the past nine months.
Looking at the numbers, it is noted the attendance record for the DI Semi-Finals held the Saturday of Memorial Day Weekend occurred in 2007, when 52,004 spectators took in the Final Four (that weekend also saw the three-day spectator record across all of the events).
Post 2008, the numbers have not been as kind. Looking at the DI Semi-Finals as a gauge (its the most popular event based on these numbers):
2009 Foxborough 39,674
2010 Baltimore 44,389
2011 Baltimore 45,039
2012 Foxborough 31,774
2013 Philadelphia 28,444
28,444 this past May. That is roughly 11,000 fewer than 2009, when the financial crisis had taken its hold on the country. While those in the lacrosse community (myself included) love touting the sports’ growth and its rising popularity, that is a bad number.
ISSUES
Having noted the drastic change, the paper then goes into what the committee sees as some of the causes of this attendance decrease. You can read the paper for the full arguments, but here is a Cliffs Notes version:
Bad economy + Higher Ticket Prices = Worse attendance
Bingo was his name-o. The report notes the cost for an all-session pass to the 2006 Championship Weekend in Philadelphia was $60, and in 2013 was $110 (For a good and more in-depth read on this subject, take a look at this Bloomberg piece).
As the IMLCA rightly contends, The championship always has been promoted as a great family event; unfortunately, with the increase in ticket prices and the negative impact of the economy on families, fewer fans are enjoying the greatest NCAA family- oriented championship.
Said another way: You are asking, in a rough economy, for a family to pay more than double the price they did during the attendance-boom years that occurred from 2005-2008, when the economy had yet to fall off.
Add to that parking (currently set at $55 for next years championship weekend in Baltimore), hotels (not even the Priceline negotiator can stop hotel price increases around a big event) and travel (the average price of a gallon of gasoline was about one dollar more expensive in 2012 at $3.62 than in 2006, when it was $2.59) and the argument can be made that price increases are as much (or more) to blame for the decline than any other factor.
Growth at the High School and Club level can actually hurt with an increase in other lacrosse obligations
They are spot-on here. Club teams, showcases and events have popped up everywhere, and Memorial Day Weekend is no stranger to these.
Better at-home technology and more TV coverage may hurt attendance
Eh. This may sound true, but look at the numbers. Per LaxMagazine.com, the ratings for the 2007 Championship Game on ESPN the same game that drew record attendance was 855,000 viewers. Comparatively, the 2013 game drew 688,000 viewers on the worldwide leader while drawing roughly 20,000 fewer in-stadium spectators.
The paper notes this as well, but also with the caveat that an increase in televised regular season may have an unquantifiable effect.
It also notes in-game technology needs improving and in-game social media offerings need boosting. While this is all well-and-good, that is not going to be the difference in reversing such a drastic attendance decrease.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The committee goes on to make five recommendations.
1. Reduce the hosts financial guarantee for the championship, thus providing the hosts the opportunity to establish lower ticket prices. The NCAA should take the position that selling 1,000 tickets at $10 is better than 500 tickets at $20. Understanding that the NCAA, the host venue and host institution would need to work together to attract the incremental fan base, it would be important to promote the event as a “can’t miss” family weekend.
One of the biggest causes of ticket price hikes is that when cities bid on the event, they promise the NCAA a financial guarantee. As such, they need to make up the difference, which is accomplished in part via higher ticket prices. Reducing this burden, then, would seem a logical move.
But is this possible with the rotating venue model? Understanding the NCAA is interested in profits (see ESPN College Basketball analyst Jay Bilas brilliant exposing of the NCAAs own site selling player jerseys for profit), this is a pie-in-the-sky suggestion that doesnt seem realistic given the current model.
2. Establish college-student ticket prices. The NCAA should consider allowing host institutions to create college-student ticket prices that would be valid on event day with a college ID.
This argument is moot for me. Most schools are long-finished with classes by Memorial Day Weekend, and are not sending droves of students to Championship Weekend anyway. Those that attend are friends or close followers of the team.
Frankly, college lacrosse games are not drawing huge numbers at their own institutions during classes in April. Solid, sure, but not enough when thinking on a big scale. I doubt making this change would put a dent in the issue. It would be nice, but this is not doing anything to help reverse big attendance declines.
3. Create site-specific logos. The championship logo must be a destination-based design to help promote the cant miss impression. The generic event logo the NCAA created in 2009 does not help sell the event on a continuous basis.
Im going to pretend this isnt a serious suggestion and just move on.
4. Create an in-stadium announce crew to provide live, in-game analysis and interviews that would be shown on the stadium video boards. Live interviews of coaches before the game, halftime. Analysis during timeouts and between quarters. Interviews with non-playing coaches who could provide insight as to strategies each team may try to utilize. Create content similar to what fans watching on television are seeing at home.
An interesting suggestion. But again, the report notes that TV ratings for the Championship have actually decreased along the same path as the in-game attendance. So this seems blah as well.
5. The NCAA should continue to provide resources to host institutions to create an in-depth grass roots promotional program. Lacrosse is a niche sport. As much as we celebrate the growth of lacrosse, it still is very small compared with other sports. The local and regional grass roots program is extremely important to successfully selling tickets for the championship.
This is a solid suggestion, but while it sounds good theoretically, how do you go about this? Sans tangible ways to do this, it doesnt resonate.
FUTURE?
I am not sure what the answer is to the issue of declining attendance. There are a ton of articles on the topic, many of which put forth suggestions.
Frankly, I think the answer is fairly simple: Having one site host the event annually and/or move the event to a smaller venue.
The former would stop the bidding war between venues and thus allow less in the way of host monetary obligations to the NCAA – which would result in the realistic ability to lower ticket prices.
The later would help via Economics 101 (supply/demand) and also make the game more attractive on TV (there is nothing worse than seeing a half-empty stadium in HD).
Most of the other suggestions those put forth in the IMLCA paper as well simply put a band-aid on a wound that needs a stitch. Moving the game out West would help briefly, but after the honeymoon period you are back at square one. Ramping up in-stadium technology and the like are fine, but you have to get people there first they arent going to suddenly decide to attend because there are in-stadium announcers. In-stadium technology is very important — essential, even — but you need to get people there first.
It will be very interesting to see what happens in the coming years, but one thing is for sure declining attendance is a big issue.
What do you think? Let us know in the comments section!
_______________________
Follow us on Twitter:
@SpikeMal
@LacrosseRecruit
Like us on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/SportsRecruits