2006-2007 CBA Season to date

[panchess]

While clearly a work in progress, there are some encouraging signs this season.

1) The new teams seem to have settled in at about 1,000 in attendance per
game, with Minot a bit higher and Pittsburgh lower. Given a full off-season to market and promote stability, the numbers should go up. That is probably the biggest problem with the ABA, the teams come and go, so it's practically impossible to promote the teams during the off-season. Indiana's last game had attendance of 1,246, so the 75-100 numbers reported earlier seem to be in error.

2) The quality of play is higher than expected. Even Pittsburgh isn't an easy out in most of the their games, and teams like Great Falls and Indiana have really picked it up. Unfortunately, it looks like the only playoff race will be between Indiana and Minot in the American Conference. The National looks decided, except for first place.

3) The league could use a couple more teams. Though it has operated with seven or eight since the Isiah years, a 10 or 12 team league would be a lot more efficient and interesting, allowing teams to cut the other division to two games per team and make one Western/Eastern swing.

Looks like 2007-2008 will be the CBA's 62nd season, despite the wails to the contrary.

[bdaly]

There's no way teams are out of the red or even close at all at 1,000 and change (announced) per game. So it's a question of whether the current ownership groups are going to be patient. Time will tell the story. But, the good news is no one looks like they're going to implode during the season.

I'm also going to take Indiana's numbers with a grain of salt--they don't appear to market, update their website often, or receive much in the way of media coverage, and now some of their box score attendance numbers have suddenly improved.

Ultimately, we'll see if the insanity of two minor leagues with national footprints and high travel continues next year (CBA and NBDL).

[Sam Hill]

Latest announced CBA numbers:

Yakama.........12..36,709...3,059
Albany..........7..10,785...1,541
Minot...........5...7,166...1,433
Indiana.........5...5,921...1,184
Great Falls.....9..10,479...1,164
Butte...........3...3,226...1,075
Pittsburgh......4...4,200...1,050
Utah............8...8,045...1,005
CBA TOTAL......53..86,531...1,633

[rtz]

Have you been to a home game? The attendence each time I've been there is under 100 easily, excluding the dancers, table staff and players. I'll keep attending the games because I want minor league bb in Utah. But they need to do a much better job with advertising and pr.

[bdaly]

I suspect the situation is the same in Indiana. Someone posted on another board saying they are drawing 75 fans a game at the Wigwam, and they even had a box score (that has since been changed) with a crowd indicating such a number. It seems that there is some significant attendance inflation going on in those two cases. We've noticed how the CBA generally doesn't like to post crowds under 1K, and now they have five teams averaging just above that number. Very interesting.

[kg21obf]

Rockford and Gary drew more than these teams draw and folded. It seems these towns either can cut it or cant , give me an example of a team in any minor league that muddled around for a few years and then attendance took off. In Yakima they used to sell out in the mid 90's, now they have found the base of 3000 give or take a few. Yakima was losing huge amounts of money 2-3 yrs ago drawing over 2000 per nite. As for the quality of play, it seems to have picked up a little(still havnt seen Minot). But the Dakota Wizards of 2003-04 and Yakima in 2003, had 5-6 players each with nba experience. I have yet to see anyone that is even along shot to play in the league anytime soon.

[bectond]

Teams sell tickets to corporate sponsors, these sponsors then give the tickets away to their employees, if a team relies heavily on this type of ticket sales than you will notice alot of no shows, many NBA teams have this same problem. The numbers are not inflated, in fact this type of sales job reduces alot of advertising cost. Some teams rely on season tickets (full and partial), some on sponsors and some on game day sales or group sales. Teams that rely on sponsors will always have a lot of no-shows if the team is not winning or the team does not have much of a buzz.

[panchess]

...though it says 0 in the CBA box score. The Montana Standard article mentioned that the team invited several high school teams to the game, which is certainly a good promotional idea.

[bdaly]

Teams sell tickets to corporate sponsors, these sponsors then give the tickets away to their employees, if a team relies heavily on this type of ticket sales than you will notice alot of no shows, many NBA teams have this same problem. The numbers are not inflated, in fact this type of sales job reduces alot of advertising cost. Some teams rely on season tickets (full and partial), some on sponsors and some on game day sales or group sales. Teams that rely on sponsors will always have a lot of no-shows if the team is not winning or the team does not have much of a buzz.
Yes, but teams who do this--and most do--don't have a 90% no show rate. I can buy 10-25% of the crowd not showing up, but if games are announced at 1,000 with ~100 people in attendance, they are simply inflating the numbers. Either that, or the product is miserable and no one wants to return (or give it a chance). I don't think the CBA's product is poor, so it leads me to the other conclusion.

[bdaly]

...though it says 0 in the CBA box score. The Montana Standard article mentioned that the team invited several high school teams to the game, which is certainly a good promotional idea.
Definitely. If teams aren't getting youth teams to play at the half and recognizing high school teams, they're really missing out. The Razorsharks are holding a tripleheader with two high school basketball games and the pro game on Martin Luther King Day (with students getting discounted, but not free, tickets). Ideas like Butte's and the R-Sharks' "Hoops Classic" are great ways to expose basketball fans to their product.

As for the crowd, 1,048 isn't anything to write home about, so I'm not surprised it received a "0" in the box score. But, I'm more skeptical of Utah and Indiana anyways. But, with that said, is Butte's website still advertising their home opener (with their latest press release for 9/26)? Ouch.

[panchess]

..I am very surprised that the CBA does not have a game scheduled on Martin Luther King Day.

Though I realize the schedule had some adjustments when Atlanta and Vancouver dropped, it is a bit strange in spots. As far as Albany is concerned, bringing Indiana in on Christmas night, then Minot the next night, followed by two off days and another Minot game, was weird.

So are the back-to-back Sunday trips to Minot for single afternoon games.

[bectond]

Yes, but teams who do this--and most do--don't have a 90% no show rate. I can buy 10-25% of the crowd not showing up, but if games are announced at 1,000 with ~100 people in attendance, they are simply inflating the numbers. Either that, or the product is miserable and no one wants to return (or give it a chance). I don't think the CBA's product is poor, so it leads me to the other conclusion.

Most teams rely on partial season ticket sales and group sales for the backbone of their organizations, not corporate sales. Butte and Utah most likely went to the business sector first, if the business sector is their base I don't find it odd at all that nine out of every ten tickets sold could be no shows if your in a small town with an NBA team and a major state college team. Who knows if the businesses and agencies that sponsor them are actively pushing the tickets they purchased on their employees. Give these teams some time, they most likely expected 1,500 a game this year and they are 50% behind their targets. Some of the new teams like Butte have not played many home games so they can still make their projections if they do some more gorilla marketing this winter.

[bdaly]

I still can't buy into the 90% rate--I have never seen it anywhere in any league. Indiana has a history of modest crowds, so I doubt that they magically got in great in with corporations who can't even give their seats to employees. My gosh, if that's the case, those companies will never renew. Their employees are showing they have no interest, while their sponsorship is resulting in 80 pairs of real eyes seeing the signage. So, if those tickets came from sponsorships, they'll never renew with so few people really attending. And, companies surely didn't buy them, as they wouldn't for the reasons you outlined.

Even further, Indiana/CBA actually changed a figure in their box score--that's a little suspicious. All in all, I don't buy it. Particularly in Indiana, because they aren't new to the market. And, I doubt the corporate community in Utah would be that excited about a team that's going to play second fiddle to the Jazz that has little to no season ticket base. Time will tell though; we'll see if both teams are around next year and the year after.

[Ken, Steelheads fan]

From the For What It's Worth department:

I don't buy the 90% rate either. I also don't buy Pittsburgh having 500 season ticket holders. Maybe I was born yesterday, but I stayed-up all night.

panchess,
I'm not surprised at all that no games were scheduled on MLK Day. Two reasons: 1) Most of these teams rushed into a 2006-2007 schedule (limited arena dates)-- 2) MLK Day doesn't go over well in big sky country (it's just another Monday).

From the Quality Of Play department:

Wasn't the CBA LEADING the NBADL in NBA call-ups at this point last season?

[Chuck the Writer]

From the Quality Of Play department:

Wasn't the CBA LEADING the NBADL in NBA call-ups at this point last season?

You may not be aware of this, but the D-League hasn't called up any players this season as of the time I'm posting this message.

[DWizards]

You may not be aware of this, but the D-League hasn't called up any players this season as of the time I'm posting this message.

What are you talking about? The D-League has already had 5 callups (not to mention a bunch of assigned players that have been recalled).

January 6 : L.A. CLIPPERS
Signed F Luke Jackson from the Idaho Stampede.

January 6 : ATLANTA
Signed F Dijon Thompson from the Albuquerque Thunderbirds.

January 5 : SACRAMENTO
Signed F Justin Williams from the Dakota Wizards.

January 5 : SEATTLE
Signed F Andre Brown from the Sioux Falls Skyforce.

January 2 : GOLDEN STATE
Signed G Kelenna Azubuike from the Fort Worth Flyers.

[panchess]

..but Albany is the state capital of NY, so a lot of people have the day off. Given the Armory is in the middle of one of the highest concentrations of African-Americans in the entire Hudson Valley, the team currently has an entirely African-American roster and coaching staff, the thought of a home game that day might have occurred to management. An afternoon game.

Pittsburgh should have a home game that day too.

[bectond]

I still can't buy into the 90% rate--I have never seen it anywhere in any league. Indiana has a history of modest crowds, so I doubt that they magically got in great in with corporations who can't even give their seats to employees. My gosh, if that's the case, those companies will never renew. Their employees are showing they have no interest, while their sponsorship is resulting in 80 pairs of real eyes seeing the signage. So, if those tickets came from sponsorships, they'll never renew with so few people really attending. And, companies surely didn't buy them, as they wouldn't for the reasons you outlined.

Even further, Indiana/CBA actually changed a figure in their box score--that's a little suspicious. All in all, I don't buy it. Particularly in Indiana, because they aren't new to the market. And, I doubt the corporate community in Utah would be that excited about a team that's going to play second fiddle to the Jazz that has little to no season ticket base. Time will tell though; we'll see if both teams are around next year and the year after.


Your switching teams I was refering to Butte and Utah, no one prior to your post was discussing Indiana. I said that the Eagles have other high profile basketball programs operating in the same small metro area and that they are not the hot basketball team right now (the Jazz started out 12-1) they may have sold tickets to businesses but with the Jazz hot start nobody noticed!

I never said anything about the Alley Cats, I mentioned Butte (which has not played many games yet) and Utah. The Atlanta Hawks announce 15,000 but they only have about 6,000 show up, if one team can have 9,000 no shows why can't you believe the people of Salt Lake would pass on some free Eagles tickets, they can get Jazz tickets for under 10 bucks.

[bdaly]

Your switching teams I was refering to Butte and Utah, no one prior to your post was discussing Indiana. I said that the Eagles have other high profile basketball programs operating in the same small metro area and that they are not the hot basketball team right now (the Jazz started out 12-1) they may have sold tickets to businesses but with the Jazz hot start nobody noticed!

I never said anything about the Alley Cats, I mentioned Butte (which has not played many games yet) and Utah. The Atlanta Hawks announce 15,000 but they only have about 6,000 show up, if one team can have 9,000 no shows why can't you believe the people of Salt Lake would pass on some free Eagles tickets, they can get Jazz tickets for under 10 bucks.
No, I was never referring to Butte. I had never heard that they were only really drawing 100 fans, and I hope that's not the case. Their articles don't refer to their turnouts being that bad. Simply put, if a team only has 10% of the fans come, they're in deep trouble. Frankly, I find it terribly unlikely they sold tickets to businesses in Utah with little notice or reputation. Maybe more ABA teams should distribute 1,000 tickets and happen to only have 100 people show up. I'm sure everyone would see that as a legitimate practice. I, however, regardless of the league, find it troublesome.

[bectond]

IF attendance does not increase the team will likely relocate, but the fact that they are in trouble was not the issue I was addressing. I'm stating that they are not fudging the numbers. It's just that no one in Salt Lake City seems to notice(so they can't sell any season tickets) and no one seems to be interested either (no ones taking the sponsors tickets either). Most of the people they are targeting as fans are caught up in the Jazz's great start. If Jazz tickets were priced higher or if the Jazz were lossing maybe they could find some kind of niche. But for now the tickets they sold are not being used. I have giving you examples i.e. the Atlanta Hawks of the NBA this is a common trend in some markets depending on how a team chooses to sell tickets. As far as the ABA, most of the owners are azz backwards, and they could not put together a competent front office because they are foolish and don't have the resources. That league depends mostly on gimmicks and most of the new owners buy into that kind of non-sense and tend to avoid sound business practices. Most of the teams play in areas that already have teams, thus they would most likely be left outside looking in at most of the corporate dollars. Plus the leagues track record is abysmal some markets have already witnessed three franchises fail in the last three years, no business owner in his or her right mind would sponsor a team that can not draw or complete a season. I do not believe the 95% of the ABA can survive, it's a scam, most teams are not supposed to last more than a year or two. If they last long than a year it will most likely be because of group sales and single-game ticket sales not season tickets or corporate sponsors.

[bdaly]

As far as the ABA, most of the owners are azz backwards, and they could not put together a competent front office because they are foolish and don't have the resources.
I agree many ABA teams should never have been let in. I've seen the good (Rochester and Vermont) and the bad (Montreal, Baltimore) play. But, you're not be even handed. If a team is "distributing" 1,000 tickets and can only get 100 people to show up, then are they really marketing the team? Marketing isn't printing out 1,000 tickets and handing out stacks of tickets at three of four businesses and hoping they'll get distributed. That's every bit as bad as what many ABA teams are doing. Both are recipes for disaster.

Plus, printing tickets like that devalues the product. Who in their right mind is going to buy seasons when they know free tickets are available so readily? And, if people aren't coming, the team hasn't demonstrated the team's value to the community--excuses aside. In general, I think teams in large cities that are playing behind a major league team have little chance of survival anyways. I'd be surprised if Utah or Atlanta makes it long term. And, it's no surprise the ABA teams tend to struggle too.

The Atlanta example is nice, but I'm aware of how miserable of a sports market that is. The Braves also drew minor league crowds before they were good. Luckily, with Turner behind them, it didn't matter. You're not going to find the strong markets doing that. The Sabres used to give out tickets to fill their arena. That owner is now in jail (for his other business dealings). Now, they actually sell their tickets, and they are going to sell out every game this year. If a team gives out a limited number of seats to targeted groups, it can work. But, if 90%+ of their crowd didn't pay and won't show up, they're in trouble.

But, going back to Indiana, which is the bigger issue, they posted a crowd on the CBA site of under 100. It sat there for a week or so. Then, magically, the crowd changed to just over 1,000. That, right there, sounds like a case of inflating their numbers. Especially when someone who attended said the crowd was much closer to what they first posted. So, there's a bit of an integrity issue there, and it makes you wonder if it's any different in a few other cases...

[bectond]

They are not giving tickets away, they are paid by a sponsors and in return the sponsor places a sign in the arena, place an ad in the program and get tickets to all the games. These companies are paying for good publicity (if the team has a good image then the fans may project that image to the sponsor) the sponsors give the tickets away to clients and employees but that does not ensure they will use the tickets. There is also nothing improper about correcting an erroneous attendance figure. If they sold 1,000 tickets they have the right to announce 1,000 instead of how many fans attended.
Having sponsors does not devalue the product because it reduces the supply of tickets. These teams are most likely attempting to save money on advertising by going directly to the government or business community. Time will tell if this type of start-up sports marketing plan will work.

As far as me being even handed- the ABA is a mess! The leagues premise can not work (100 teams regardless of the market). Unless the leadership countermands their ill-advised philosophy it will continue to constantly loss it's top franchises. There is a niche out there for indy basketball, but if they don't make some minor changes most franchise owners will only loss money(which I believe is by design) and the top franchises will look for greener pastures. The ABA practices pure capitalism and I don't believe that is in the best interest of inexperienced ownership. The market is out there but without a stronger centralized administration with a workable business plan most owners will continue to fail and the successful owners will never be able to sell their teams for a sizable return. Owning a sports franchise is a losing propositition, owners recoup their losses via sharing in expansion fees and selling the team for a price that is much higher than the amount they paid for the team. Generally, that is it. Most teams loss money each year regardless of the league. Poeple have to be willing to buy your franchise for an owner to profit, and who would pay top dollar for a well run ABA team when they could get one for free from the CEO or only have to pay 20,000 for an expansion team or when they can relocate a failed team for next to nothing. The ABA can't work long term at a micro level (the franchises). The macro(League) level will continue to turn out teams and profit but the franchises will never see a huge return for their money in it's current format.

[bdaly]

They are not giving tickets away, they are paid by a sponsors and in return the sponsor places a sign in the arena, place an ad in the program and get tickets to all the games. These companies are paying for good publicity (if the team has a good image then the fans may project that image to the sponsor) the sponsors give the tickets away to clients and employees but that does not ensure they will use the tickets. There is also nothing improper about correcting an erroneous attendance figure. If they sold 1,000 tickets they have the right to announce 1,000 instead of how many fans attended.
Do you know they were paid for by sponsors, or is that an assumption? Take a look at all their sponsors on the website (http://www.utaheagles.com/main.php?mains=sponsor), and it looks like there are a few--but not many--from their pictures. Frankly, I find it hard to believe many sponsors gave up significant amounts of money on an unproven team with little lead time. But, if you can illustrate they did (and they charged more than a couple hundred bucks for the season), then good for them. It's still a poor practice. I remember the Montreal Express in the NLL. They posted good numbers, and at least in their case, the fans showed up. That's why everyone was surprised when they folded the franchise after one season. Those tickets were mostly distributed (or bundled).

As for them "correct an erroneous attendance figure," it sounds like you're being a little naive there. I'm aware of the ABA's issues and the bitterness towards Mr Newman (and, perhaps it's fair, I've never met him). But, come on. If you think giving away, or bundling, 90% of your tickets is a good practice, there's a little denial here. I'm not convinced, particularly in the case of Indiana, that that many tickets were "distributed." If ABA teams gave out 250 tickets a piece to their handful of sponsors, would you consider that a strong business practice?

So, in a nutshell, these two teams might have given tickets to sponsors as a part of a sponsorship practice (yes, that's common, assuming they paid decent money, but it's not common that they make up most of the crowd). And, these sponsors, particularly in the case of Utah, jumped at the chance to advertise in front of 100 paying bodies that would actually show up. And, I can't imagine they paid good money to be in a program that might get distributed to maybe 300 people over the course of the season. Sounds like a tough and unlikely sell to me.... And, no team will make it from 100 real paid fans. The ABA has plenty of examples for you. Because, these supposed sponsors sure as heck won't return with those numbers--sponsors care about bodies in the arena, not tickets distributed to, well, them.

[bectond]

As for them "correct an erroneous attendance figure," it sounds like you're being a little naive there..

I'm not naive, i'm saying that some NBA teams give most of their tickets to corporate sponsors. This allows them to sell the remaining tickets at a higher price, less supply (seats) more demand. Most teams do it the old fashion way, New Orleans will surely go the corporate route next year after relying on walk-ups and group sales prior to Katrina. If the team announced 100 but sold 1,000 tickets they can change the figure, I understand what they are doing you are having a harder time understanding, i'm just explaining the process.



--sponsors care about bodies in the arena, not tickets distributed to, well, them.

Sponsors care about image!(that is what teams sell to sponsors, that is why the NBA comes down harder on bad boys than leagues that rely more on season ticket sales)
Sponsors want the community to know their business cares about them. If the Alley Cats were focused on bringing in underprivileged for a game many sponsors would jump in to pay for the tickets. I don't think you understand the process. Many government agencies own the arenas they want the place occupied. They will assist in gettting sponsors to help the team because it is good business, sponsors have done the government a favor and the favor will be returned at some point. One hand washes the other, that is the process. Are they actively pushing their produce? No, they are not. They are going a different route, i'm trying to get you to understand that. I attempted to inform you on the different avenues a team can use to bring in money, many NBA teams learned that they could make money focusing only on corporate sponsorship. Now teams are copying this at the minor league level. Will it work? I don't know, but this ain't the ABA. The ABA's business plan is a mess and their image is a mess so their teams will naturally have a harder time going this route. Vermont can go this route because someone with a working brain has infromed the owner and he has not followed the ABA business model. Pro sports is in large part smoke and mirrors don't get too caught up in how many people showed-up. The arena ownership are the ones that should be concerned with no-shows, not the franchise ownership(unless they also own the arena). Franchise owners should want their money coming in prior to the season starting and sponsors allow teams to make projections.

Example (if your team relies on sponsorship then:)
Selling tickets is just gravy! If my sponsorship is low then I won't advertise, i'll cut my front office staff and i'll pay players 500 a week. If sponsorship is high then you'd hire more staff, bulk up the advertising budget and pay players 1,250 a week.

[bdaly]

Again, the problem with that method is sponsors generally have a guarantee that X number of live eyes will see their banners. I know that's how it works with most legit teams. Goodwill is nice, but generally, if say the Alleycats brought in underpriviledged kids, those kids would actually show up to the game. I'm aware of all of these methods. However, the 90% no show rate is still unheard of. A few minor league baseball teams in miserable weather in April might approach that rate, but they have a good excuse.

Also, along with the other things I mentioned in my post, I'd like some evidence the NBA gives away most of their seats to corporate sponsors. Even the "comp rate" in MLS (http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/soccer/20060927-9999-lz1s27goal.html) is well below half. And, generally, bundled sponsorship tickets are marked as comp--this is regardless of if they're given to sponsors who paid good dollars for sponsorship.

So, I understand what you are saying. However, it seems unlikely based on what I've seen in sports over the years. Regardless, 10% of fans showing up is an enormous red flag. Luckily, we don't have a single minor league team out of the six here in Rochester who deals with a rate anywhere close to one that is that miserable. In the end, any team drawing 200 fans is not heading in a good direction, regardless of these so-called distributed tickets.

Again, if you can provide some evidence of most NBA teams giving away more than half their seats, or evidence these two CBA teams have legit sponsors that paid good money that they're giving these 900 tickets to, then I could buy into their argument a little better. Until then, these teams aren't doing anything better than the ABA teams that get 100 real bodies in the stands. It's a mess in both cases, but the CBA's travel costs makes it that much worse. And, the only other difference is the ABA teams don't report a figure, so fans report what they see, while these CBA teams draw the same, and post a figure. ABA teams could easily make up, errr post the same figure in a box score if they bothered to report.

To me, it sounds like you're digging for a bunch of hypotheticals and we have no evidence they apply in this situation. Heck, maybe all the ABA teams drawing 100 real people are doing the same thing! It's funny to see people so blindly defend poorly run teams in one league and then jump on those in the other. A team getting 100 people through the gates is a team getting 100 people through the gates. Sponsors creating goodwill means nothing if no one knows about it. And, as of today, Utah's sponsorship page remains empty.

[Ken, Steelheads fan]

...Sponsors care about image!(that is what teams sell to sponsors, that is why the NBA comes down harder on bad boys than leagues that rely more on season ticket sales)
Sponsors want the community to know their business cares about them. If the Alley Cats were focused on bringing in underprivileged for a game many sponsors would jump in to pay for the tickets. I don't think you understand the process. Many government agencies own the arenas they want the place occupied. They will assist in gettting sponsors to help the team because it is good business, sponsors have done the government a favor and the favor will be returned at some point. One hand washes the other, that is the process. Are they actively pushing their produce? No, they are not. They are going a different route, i'm trying to get you to understand that. I attempted to inform you on the different avenues a team can use to bring in money, many NBA teams learned that they could make money focusing only on corporate sponsorship. Now teams are copying this at the minor league level. Will it work? I don't know, but this ain't the ABA. The ABA's business plan is a mess and their image is a mess so their teams will naturally have a harder time going this route. Vermont can go this route because someone with a working brain has infromed the owner and he has not followed the ABA business model. Pro sports is in large part smoke and mirrors don't get too caught up in how many people showed-up. The arena ownership are the ones that should be concerned with no-shows, not the franchise ownership(unless they also own the arena). Franchise owners should want their money coming in prior to the season starting and sponsors allow teams to make projections.

Example (if your team relies on sponsorship then:)
Selling tickets is just gravy! If my sponsorship is low then I won't advertise, i'll cut my front office staff and i'll pay players 500 a week. If sponsorship is high then you'd hire more staff, bulk up the advertising budget and pay players 1,250 a week.

Ahhhhhhh! The universe is in balance once again because I find myself once again DISAGREEING with practically EVERYTHING bectond says.

Sponsors care about image!(that is what teams sell to sponsors, that is why the NBA comes down harder on bad boys than leagues that rely more on season ticket sales)

I always thought Sponsors cared more about product exposure. I also thought teams sold focused advertising space to sponsors. Image? If only I could get inside the head of a sponsor to find-out what the real deal is.

...The arena ownership are the ones that should be concerned with no-shows, not the franchise ownership(unless they also own the arena)...

Hmmmmm.

[bectond]

Ahhhhhhh!
I always thought Sponsors cared more about product exposure. I also thought teams sold focused advertising space to sponsors. Image?

Some sponsors exhibit their products in arenas and some have customers fill out information cards for give aways. But most sponsor teams to show that they are part of the community. Most sponsor give-aways to improve their corporate image.

Example 1:
The state lottery does not need exposure, they sponsor teams to give government assistance to team owners and to improve their image.

Companys are always looking for ways to prove that they are not just taking money out of the community and that they are also giving back. People love their sports teams and sponsoring the local team improves their image to the whole community. Small companies that need product exposure normally don't sponsor sports teams.

No-shows are more important to the arena owner because the arena owner makes the money off concessions and parking. If the team does not own the building the team is more focused on selling tickets. I don't know of any team that concerns themselves with why corporate tickets are not used, they care about why non-profits stop using their games for fundraisers, why their group sales are down and why season ticket holders don't renew. But must team owners would not be concerned if 90% the state lotterys tickets distributed for a game went unused.

[bectond]

I'd like some evidence the NBA gives away most of their seats to corporate sponsors. Even the "comp rate" in MLS (http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/soccer/20060927-9999-lz1s27goal.html) is well below half. And, generally, bundled sponsorship tickets are marked as comp--this is regardless of if they're given to sponsors who paid good dollars for sponsorship..

I said some NBA teams rely on corporate sponsors, not all. Different teams use different strategies.

Example
New Orleans will have a hard time selling season tickets for the foreseeable future, the team will have to rely on the business community to help buy a large percentage of the tickets in order for the team to survive in that market. Once the business community buys their share of tickets then the team can raise the price of the remaining tickets, instead of how they were selling tickets (at a discount on game day). The Hornets have been following the business model of teams like Washington and Atlanta in OKL City(because companies long to improve their image by sponsoring the Hornets). They now lead the NBA in corporate sponsors. The NBA, the city of New Orleans and the cities business sector are all working with the Hornets to help bring tourism back to the city for next years all-star game. With the NBA awarding the game to New Orleans (which brings in rich tourist) the NBA has asking the business community to sponsor the team. The businesses that sponsor the team are doing it for the All-Star game and to improve their image with the people in the city.

[bectond]

Ome last comment, OKL City sold out over 90% of their games last year in less than 30 days. Do you believe the Hornets targeted season ticket holders?
The Hornets sold those tickets to the business community- Energy companys and oil companys that want to improve their image by helping a team from New Orleans and showing the world that OKL City is a major league town.
The Hornets took that corporate money and went on a major spending spree this summer, without large season ticket holder base.

[bdaly]

Companys are always looking for ways to prove that they are not just taking money out of the community and that they are also giving back. People love their sports teams and sponsoring the local team improves their image to the whole community. Small companies that need product exposure normally don't sponsor sports teams.
Yes people love their sports teams--sports teams they actually know about. Neither of the two cases we've been discussing receive much in the way of media coverage. And, not surprisingly, they receive little in the way of real fan support. So, we're supposed to take this leap and assume companies purchased a sponsorship package that a) almost nobody is seeing and b) their own employees have no interest in even seeing the product. Again, improving their image is nice. But how is their image improved if no one (or 100 or 200 people) know about it?

No-shows are more important to the arena owner because the arena owner makes the money off concessions and parking. If the team does not own the building the team is more focused on selling tickets. I don't know of any team that concerns themselves with why corporate tickets are not used, they care about why non-profits stop using their games for fundraisers, why their group sales are down and why season ticket holders don't renew. But must team owners would not be concerned if 90% the state lotterys tickets distributed for a game went unused.
Interesting, but I disagree. Many owners get a cut of the concessions. Obviously merchandise doesn't move at all if no one is there, and the same goes for programs. And, when someone buys advertising, they are sold on X number of people being exposed to it. If they aren't, there are obvious issues. Finally, as far as the arena goes, I'd argue many are happy if no one comes. They'll get the same amount of money aside from concessions, and they can send staff home early. Given the poor dates many CBA (and ABA) teams get, these arenas would likely sit empty anyways.

You've still provided me no evidence that either team is doing what we've discussed. So, this doesn't really matter anyways. And the NBA examples aren't of value for two reasons: 1) people will actually find out about what they're doing and their tickets will be used 2) they actually paid good money for them. So, I'll conclude by saying I agree with Ken. If you want to assume teams that draw 100 real people are doing this, that's fine (lots of ABA teams must be drawing 1,017 or 1,035, or whatever other random number just above 1K that's posted too ;)). But, it's only fair to make the same assumption for every team that's putting up miserable numbers at the gates. I, however, expect teams putting up those numbers--no matter the league--are headed to a premature death. Time will tell, and I'll leave it at that.

[kg21obf]

The only thing that matters is people in the building. On another note something that is very disturbing is, three of the best players in the CBA have skipped out. Ralph Holmes,Markson, and Ben Ebong. This is normal later in the season when teams are eliminated from contention. And Utah is willing to give up one of their assets(Griffin) for cash. So losing Markson and Griffin will make them totally uncompetitive. It appears they are just trying to cut there losses. The quality of play or lack there of as I have stated in previous posts, just took another hit.

[panchess]

..I don;t understand

[sportsguy12]

But, going back to Indiana, which is the bigger issue, they posted a crowd on the CBA site of under 100. It sat there for a week or so. Then, magically, the crowd changed to just over 1,000. That, right there, sounds like a case of inflating their numbers. Especially when someone who attended said the crowd was much closer to what they first posted. So, there's a bit of an integrity issue there, and it makes you wonder if it's any different in a few other cases...

I'm not defending them or stating this this might be true ... but did you ever think that 100 to 1,000 might have been a typo.

I would question 100 to 2,000 or 3,000. But 1,000 is hardly a respectable crowd. I wasn't there, so I don't know what the crowd was. But maybe they forgot a zero. I'm not defending them, but it might have been an honest mistake, too.

[bdaly]

I'm not defending them or stating this this might be true ... but did you ever think that 100 to 1,000 might have been a typo.

I would question 100 to 2,000 or 3,000. But 1,000 is hardly a respectable crowd. I wasn't there, so I don't know what the crowd was. But maybe they forgot a zero. I'm not defending them, but it might have been an honest mistake, too.
It wasn't even an even 100 (and the new crowd wasn't an even 1,000). I believe it was in the 70s, but I can't recall. Someone at the game verified that's their normal draw. Perhaps they "accidentally" reported the gate crowd. That number sat there for a week or two. Again, it's nice that supporters keep coming up with these hypotheticals. But, they "accidentally" posted a crowd that an attendee verified is correct. Even further, they posted nothing for numerous crowds, and then they were suddenly updated--perhaps it takes them weeks to tally all their fans? It smells fishy to me, especially since they drew similar crowds last year and they've changed little this year on the operations side. While the CBA has posted a few crowds under 1,000, an awful lot of crowds tend to be just over 1,000.

Utah trading their top scorer to the best drawing team in the league in exchange for cash is a warning sign on them.

[bdaly]

..I don;t understand
It's all in this article the poster put in the CBA section:

http://www.yakima-herald.com/page/dis/313592575772421

Evidently there's a little frustration over the NBA ignoring the CBA and Holmes isn't happy with the money.

[bectond]

The only thing that matters is people in the building. On another note something that is very disturbing is, three of the best players in the CBA have skipped out. Ralph Holmes,Markson, and Ben Ebong. This is normal later in the season when teams are eliminated from contention. And Utah is willing to give up one of their assets(Griffin) for cash. So losing Markson and Griffin will make them totally uncompetitive. It appears they are just trying to cut there losses. The quality of play or lack there of as I have stated in previous posts, just took another hit.

This is no big deal, CBA players leave for europe each year around this time if they feel they won't be called up to the NBA, "Snap" Hunter and Brandon Hunter left last year last this time. Utah is not drawing any fans so selling off assists is a sound business move, the bleeding is not going to stop any time soon so they are wise to get what they can get while Yakama needs players. Yakama made a similar trade last year with Michigan grabbing their best player in a fire sale.

[panchess]

,..to Europe or the NBA is.

[panchess]

...there are only 10 more weeks left in the CBA season. It appears all of the teams will make it through the season, though Utah may be on fumes by then.
The real trick will be Utah's February road trip through the East. They have to get through that somehow, and then the rest are close or at home.

The other Apex teams, Minot, Great Falls and Butte, appear reasonably solid, though I am guessing there will be some shuffling in the Apex universe for next season, particularly with the D-League coming to town in 2007-08.

Has anybody heard anything about any of the potential CBA expansion teams for 2007-08?

[kg21obf]

True guys leave for other opportunities, but there are only about 10 legit players in this league, and we just lost 3 of them. Ebong went to Croatia, I dont know where Markson went. And Yakima is going to hold Holmes to his contract, so he cant play anywhere

[bectond]

It wasn't even an even 100 (and the new crowd wasn't an even 1,000). I believe it was in the 70s, but I can't recall. Someone at the game verified that's their normal draw. Perhaps they "accidentally" reported the gate crowd. That number sat there for a week or two. Again, it's nice that supporters keep coming up with these hypotheticals. But, they "accidentally" posted a crowd that an attendee verified is correct. Even further, they posted nothing for numerous crowds, and then they were suddenly updated--perhaps it takes them weeks to tally all their fans? It smells fishy to me, especially since they drew similar crowds last year and they've changed little this year on the operations side. While the CBA has posted a few crowds under 1,000, an awful lot of crowds tend to be just over 1,000.

Utah trading their top scorer to the best drawing team in the league in exchange for cash is a warning sign on them.

Your missing the point, no one is making hypothetical comments. Your arguement is lame dude. Announced attendence reflects the number of tickets sold or given away. That is what it is, the first figure was a turnstile count(the number of people who actually went) not an announced attendence figure. The second figure was the correct one. I was just trying to explain the difference to you and for some reason you keep talking about how fishy it is. It was a mistake Dude and they fixed it, thats all! Nobody in sports post turnstile counts man, get over it!

[bdaly]

Your missing the point, no one is making hypothetical comments. Your arguement is lame dude. Announced attendence reflects the number of tickets sold or given away.
Yikes, I realize that. Some teams have a much more favorable ratio of tickets legitmately sold and distributed. Some giveaway 90% (printing out stacks of tickets and giving them to people), and some have, in the past, flat out made up their numbers. But, Utah has sold their leading scorer and moved a home game. So, I rest my case on their figures. But, perhaps Utah has a great sponsor that doesn't even mind if they hold all of their home games. ;) Or, maybe your theory simply isn't true in their case. A hypothesis is something that is "assumed" or "supposed." Based on their actions, I'm confident that what you stated didn't occur in their case. Unless you meant they're simply printing tickets to boost the announced figure. Time will tell on the other team I mentioned.

So, I'll bold something for you. If you have real evidence that they did these things you proposed with corporations, by all means, post it here. It would be interesting, but each time I ask nothing is posted. I don't care about a team that just prints stacks of tickets. I put no weight in their figures. I could start a team tomorrow and do just that and have an announced crowd of 30,000. I wouldn't have made a dime, and I'd inevitably be out of business. Heck, all of the ABA might have announced figures of 1,000 too! I guess I respect some teams' reported figures more than others. A team that draws 10% of the announced crowd, sells their leading player, and moves a home game to the road isn't one of them....

To be clear, I know nobody reports the turnstyle, but I've never seen a sports team consistently have such a miserable ratio. But, I've never followed a team that has folded. I'll leave it at that. Utah's two desperate moves have proven my point. I'll revisit Indiana next year. So this is really my last post on this for now (especially since you keep flipping between talking about corporate sponsorships they might have and now simply defining what an announced crowd is). I'll tune in some NBA games tonight. I'm sure I'll only see 1,800 people in the stands because it's normal for 10-20% of fans with tickets to attend. ;) But, by all means argue how this is a good business practice, then talk about all the poorly run ABA teams. Heck, I'm sure moving a home game is a great move too, if it's a CBA team. I think it's bogus no matter the league.

[panchess]

..from a PR standpoint, there is a home-and-home between Utah and Butte at the end of the schedule that could be flipped to Utah, replacing the home game. That would have made more sense to announce, as the switch reduces travel costs and would have looked less like a fire sale.

Albany and Pittsburgh did that before the season started, eliminating two trips.

Where did the CBA attendance numbers come from, by the way? I am a bit concerned about the drop in Albany, though the Patroons have done nothing in marketing to speak of.

[Sam Hill]

Your missing the point, no one is making hypothetical comments. Your arguement is lame dude. Announced attendence reflects the number of tickets sold or given away.

In theory, yes. It's supposed to.

At the lower levels of sport, however, sometimes the number is just plain made up or fudged to get it to an acceptable level.

I wouldn't trust that ABA or CBA attendance numbers actually reflect tickets distributed (sold + otherwise doled out) as they're supposed to, in theory. I think many times they're just plain made up. I doubt very seriously that 60% or more of the people who've bought or been given tickets just decide not to show up. Consistently.

[bectond]

In theory, yes. It's supposed to.

At the lower levels of sport, however, sometimes the number is just plain made up or fudged to get it to an acceptable level.

I wouldn't trust that ABA or CBA attendance numbers actually reflect tickets distributed (sold + otherwise doled out) as they're supposed to, in theory. I think many times they're just plain made up. I doubt very seriously that 60% or more of the people who've bought or been given tickets just decide not to show up. Consistently.

I believe I stated in an earlier post that the business of sports is a lot of smoke and mirrors. I was attempting to provide insight into what teams do. Example- Three years ago the Hornets owner was exposed for buying his own tickets back from his team and writing off the tickets to his non-profit organization, while counting the tickets as sold. (which he did because the NBA required him to reach a turnstile count figure as a part of his relocation agreement.)
The NBA wanted his turnstile figure because they know all announced figures are juiced I have been trying to explain this for about eight post.
Teams give tickets to sponsors and then sell the remaining tickets to the general pulbic at a higher price.(less tickets means more demand for tickets by the general public). My point was this - if a turnstile count was printed as an announced attendance figure the team has the every right to correct it. No team executive in their right mind would announce 100 fans, NOT ONE! The ABA does only because most of their owners are morons.