Big Red propels Big Ten tourney to record attendance

March 12, 2012
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Big Red helped propel the Big Ten men’s basketball tournament to a new attendance record in Indianapolis.

But not the Big Red most Hoosiers would think.

The biggest factor was the addition of Nebraska, which came to the Big Ten from the Big 12 conference this year. That’s right, Nebraska.

Not that Cornhuskers hoops is a huge draw. Rather, the addition of a 12th team meant six sessions this year instead of five. Tickets are purchased and counted separately for each session.

Thursday’s session now has two sessions with two games each. Previously, Thursday had one session featuring three games.

Nevertheless, conference and local tourism officials were thrilled with attendance of 107,737, smashing last year’s 86,767 and the Big Ten tournament record in Indianapolis of 94,402 set in 2002.

Take away the 17,125 from the sixth session—the championship game—and the five session total this year was 90,612.

That’s still a strong turnout. Tournament attendance hadn’t topped 90,000 here since 2006.

This year’s per-session attendance average—17,956—was second-highest in the tournament’s history in Indianapolis. Per-session attendance in 2006 was 18,152.

But the Hoosiers resurgence—along with a strong Purdue team—should get some of the credit this year. Consider, when the Hoosiers were at their lowest in 2009, attendance was a paltry 68,098 for a per-session average of 13,620.

The predicted economic impact for the tournament was $11.2 million, based on previous years’ attendance.

Downtown merchants reported stronger sales this year during the four-day tournament, and there’s reason to believe the impact could have surpassed $12 million.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this blog

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT