Personally I agree that the team listed capacity is the number to use. Ole I have offerred before all you need do is PM your email and I will email you my main data sheet. What you do with it from there is up to you. That sheet has Date, Teams, Score, and Attendance and is what I drive all my other data sheets off of.
Finally someone states the obvious. Edward does great diligent work but the format of this thread has long since passed the point where it actually DISCOURAGES any form of analysis. The very idea that a thread about "attendance analysis" should only be about one particular set of metrics - the AAQ - is at the least intellectually dulling. What is anyone actually learning from this thread week by week? Other than the voyeuristic enjoyment of watching the (relatively arbitrary) numbers and turning year-to-year comparisons into a horse race what is gained?
No one ever said additional metrics could not be added. The only ban has been on perceived attendance for the reasons already stated. Unfortunately MLS is just not a very open business so we rarely get anything other than basic attendance data and salary info. Ole is putting together some numbers that look like promising new nuggets. I myself have tried several variations of the numbers Ole will be posting and found that the numbers were so close they did not make sense to change the markers yet. I have also added several other bits of information and data. Such as the milestones, the comparitive, the team centric views at years end. If there is some other measure you want to see let me know I will try to accommodate it. Not sure who looks at the new data bits, don't really care I post it so people can find the info if they care to. And nearly 6000 thread views suggest that people are still interested.
LOL @ San Jose raising the attendance average. Is this bizarro attendance thread? (Yes, I know they are playing in SF and hoping for a big turnout. It's just too funny to pass up.)
Should I pile on the bullshitter, or not? OK, I'll keep it clean and simple. ne plus, your assertions are at odds with the known facts. Have a nice Friday.
I think the thread still provides useful analysis about the individual teams. You're right, the aggregate numbers are so cut and dried, all we did with regard to league-wide numbers last year was gape in joy and in wonder. But you're from Toronto, and the attendance picture there has been interesting. It's an interesting case study about what COULD happen in Portland and Philly if the front office, well, behaves like TFC's front office has been behaving. When Seattle blew the doors off the league a few years back, it was interesting to read from Seattle fans how the team marketed in the runup to their first kickoff. Etc.
The Galaxy were likely tracking for low attendance on Sunday, so they had a 50% off deal on livingsocial for either the March 31st game or this Sunday and sold about 4,000 tickets. If it's an even split 50/50 that'll be a 2,000 ticket boost to their attendance. (Assuming those that bought the deal weren't going to go anyway for full price)
I enjoy this thread each week. Given how a big percentage of threads on BS are virtually unreadable, its surprising people would complain about this one. I don't think it matters that the league is now much more stable and solvent. An attendance discussion can be interesting in almost any sport as one gauge of how the league and its individual clubs are doing. Trends is fun!
Doubleheader. It will be a late arriving crowd. Oh, and that U-23 game is with Mexico. You can draw all your conclusions off the team playing next.
I actually think there were more than 10k watching the Quakes game which would have been more then a sellout at Buck Shaw. However, we'll never know so it's a moot point. Also, Mexico U-23 against the US U-23 in Dallas only drew just over 7k.
And then there are things like how the Crew's PAID attendance and ticket revenues increased for five straight years from 2006-2010 even though the announced attendance was more or less flat for 2008-2010, which were all below 2007's announced number. (Both growth streaks were snapped in 2011, and announced attendance was also well down.) So in that case, the announced number actually concealed the meaningful growth since the announced numbers didn't detail the shift toward more PAID attendance and revenue.
That all may be true, but we decided as a group here on this thread that we have to choose some convention to go by. So we go with announced attendance. Anything else, and we couldn't very well have a thread at all. Some of us (including myself) drift down the road you are on, but that's not what this thread is for. In the past there has been a "perceived attendance" thread. What you are talking about could be relevant there or in a thread in a Columbus Crew thread or start your own about this in MLS General.
No, I wasn't disputing or arguing about anything in this thread. I was just piggybacking on Triplet1's comment about how the reason this thread tracks announced attendance is because we don't have access to the more meaningful numbers and any attempts to alter the announced numbers in that vein would be futile. I totally agree with that. Sorry if I wasn't clear. (And looking back, I don't think I was.)