Oddly the intro for last week could almost apply to this week. The only difference is that LA and New York had a home game. Many other things were nearly the same. 2 matches just over 10k, as opposed to 3 last week. Just one match over 20k, though Montreal got close. And yet greater than 15k in attendance for the week, and still just the 1 sub 10k match on the year. Remember in this thread we discuss the: (AAQ = Attendance Analysis Quotient. This figure is an overall attendance assessment, calculated from the weighted values of average attendance, median attendance, <10K percentage and >20K percentage. A lower figure represents a better attendance performance.) This is a slight change from Andy's old formula which used simple ordinal values and provided a full ranking point separation for two numbers that may have been within a percentage. This ordinal system did not allow for fine differences to be seen, and may have painted a somewhat skewed view of the numbers (though to be honest there is not much difference in the two end of season sets). The formula to find the weighted value for each column is: Take the annual value and subtract it from the Max value for it's column. Then take that result and divide it by the (Max-Min) for its column. For example, for the average column 17869 is the max 13756 is the min 4113 is the difference To calculate the derived value for 2010 Subtract 16675 from 17869 to get 1194. Divide 1194 by 4113 then mulitply by 100* to get 29 *Note that this step is new as some people thought whole numbers would be easier to read. MLS Attendance is based on tickets distributed not tickets scanned. Therefore if a team sells or distributes X number of tickets, then X is the attendance for that match. Even if 0 people showed up for whatever reason, X would still be the official attendance. There are a number of reasons actual attendance may be lower or higher than the announced.
A bit of an odd week. Frankly I expected a little more from New York and Montreal. But at the same time the week ended about where I would have guessed. Week 9 will give us a whopping 12 matches, including 3 on Wednesday night. Look for 1 or 2 possible sub 10k matches on Wednesday, but hopefully none. Seattle pulls double duty hosting this week, along with home matches for LA (against New York), Toronto, Portland, Sporting, Salt Lake, Vancouver, as well as New England, San Jose, FC Dallas, and Chivas. The Chivas match in on Friday night, perhaps another possible sub 10k. Last Weeks Games: Code: FC Dallas 10069 Montréal 19223 RB New York 18152 Philadelphia 18581 DC United 13975 Columbus 11978 Chicago 14166 Real Salt Lake 17629 Colorado 10969 Los Angeles 23249 [B]Total 157991[/B] [B][COLOR="Red"]Average 15799[/COLOR][/B] Comparison to This Point Last Season and All-Time Averages: Code: ----Team---- Played Current Last Diff Alltime Diff Chicago 3 14243 14278 -0.2% 15529 -8.3% Chivas USA 4 12422 14648 -15.2% 15863 -21.7% Colorado 4 14505 13243 9.5% 13971 3.8% Columbus 4 13043 10962 19.0% 15238 -14.4% DC United 6 13751 16344 -15.9% 17194 -20.0% FC Dallas 5 14077 14688 -4.2% 12203 15.4% Houston 0 0 0 0.0% 17327 0.0% Los Angeles 5 22436 24496 -8.4% 22067 1.7% Montréal 3 33752 New 0.0% New 0.0% New England 2 11657 10014 16.4% 15610 -25.3% Philadelphia 4 18343 17762 3.3% 18724 -2.0% Portland 4 20438 18627 9.7% 18827 8.6% Red Bull NY 4 17426 17398 0.2% 17159 0.0% Real Salt Lake 5 18369 16272 12.9% 16828 9.2% San Jose 4 13267 10064 31.8% 12820 3.5% Seattle 4 38419 36287 5.9% 35329 8.7% Sporting KC 4 18671 18017 3.6% 11386 64.0% Toronto FC 4 19186 19455 -1.4% 20264 -5.3% Vancouver 4 18451 20829 -11.4% 20412 -9.6% [B]Overall - 18368 17487 5.0% 15739 16.7%[/B] Not much happening here this week. Still up 5% overall against last year. That number could go up a fair bit after this week.
Just a ho-hum 10 game 15k average week, nothing to get to excited about. Or is it? The fact that this is becoming routine and the standard really is very, very encouraging. Consider that only 5 seasons have had a greater than 15k median attendance league wide. That is why 15k seeming so ho-hum really is remarkable. MLS you've come a long way baby. Through week 8 MLS has played 73 matches or 22.6% of the season. Of those 73 matches, 48 have topped the 15k mark, and the standard deviation is 7952. The median of team medians is 17631. This season would slip back to 2nd in the original AAQ measure, even while it gains on 1996 in the new. Current Season: Code: Current Average Median <10k >20k AvgPts MedPts <10kPts >20kPts AAAQ AAAQRnk Date 1996 22982 20806 13.9% 58.3% 0 0 37 0 37 1 5/19 1997 16370 14390 22.2% 25.0% 66 77 61 71 276 6 5/9 1998 14765 12636 18.6% 20.9% 82 98 51 80 311 13 5/3 1999 13975 13648 30.2% 16.3% 90 86 85 90 351 14 5/8 2000 12987 12891 32.6% 11.6% 100 95 92 100 387 17 5/3 2001 15058 14496 19.4% 13.9% 79 76 53 95 303 12 5/12 2002 15763 13416 18.8% 18.8% 72 88 51 85 297 10 5/11 2003 13789 12972 35.3% 17.6% 92 94 100 87 373 16 5/25 2004 15381 13614 26.5% 29.4% 76 86 74 62 298 11 5/22 2005 14145 12449 27.9% 14.0% 88 100 78 95 361 15 5/18 2006 16195 16132 18.6% 20.9% 68 56 51 80 255 5 5/20 2007 14855 14130 13.6% 18.2% 81 80 36 86 283 7 5/19 2008 15721 15024 14.9% 29.8% 73 69 40 61 243 4 5/10 2009 14906 14051 15.7% 17.6% 81 81 42 87 291 9 5/2 2010 15796 13384 16.7% 20.4% 72 89 45 81 287 8 5/8 2011 17487 18122 7.2% 31.9% 55 32 17 57 161 3 5/7 2012 18368 18075 1.4% 30.1% 46 33 0 60 139 2 4/28 Current Average Median <10k >20k AvgPts MedPts <10kPts >20kPts AAAQ AAAQRnk Date Historical End of Season: Code: EOS Average Median <10k >20k AvgPts MedPts <10kPts >20kPts AAAQ AAAQRnk Date 1996 17410 15093 21.9% 26.3% 11 44 57 20 132 5 9/22 1997 14606 12733 25.0% 16.3% 79 85 67 78 310 13 9/28 1998 14312 11871 26.6% 16.1% 86 100 73 79 338 14 9/27 1999 14282 12973 32.3% 15.1% 87 81 93 85 346 15 10/10 2000 13756 12690 34.4% 12.5% 100 86 100 100 386 16 9/9 2001 14961 13431 26.6% 17.7% 71 73 73 70 286 11 9/9 2002 15821 14108 17.1% 18.6% 50 61 40 65 215 7 9/22 2003 14900 13719 23.3% 18.0% 72 68 61 68 270 10 10/26 2004 15549 13223 24.7% 25.3% 56 77 66 26 225 8 10/17 2005 15112 12619 27.1% 17.7% 67 87 75 70 298 12 10/16 2006 15426 14113 19.3% 18.2% 59 61 48 67 235 9 10/15 2007 16767 15353 8.2% 29.7% 27 40 9 0 75 2 10/21 2008 16460 15188 11.0% 24.8% 34 42 19 28 124 4 10/26 2009 16037 14686 14.7% 20.9% 45 51 32 51 178 6 10/25 2010 16675 15332 7.5% 22.5% 29 40 7 42 117 3 10/16 2011 17869 17639 5.6% 28.1% 0 0 0 9 9 1 10/23 EOS Average Median <10k >20k AvgPts MedPts <10kPts >20kPts AAAQ AAAQRnk Date
Finally we get a fourth post to start this week because as promised the predictive is back, and thus the miscellaneous and predictive are once more split out to their own post. Milestones and other Miscellany: 3 more teams joined the 250 home match club leaving New England and San Jose as the only remaining original teams to not make that mark yet. San Jose of course thanks to the 2 year hiatus will get there in couple years along with Chicago. New England on the other hand has just 2 matches to go. The 3 that made it this week did so with the following attendance through 250. Red Bull New York: 4,290,698 Colorado: 3,494,995 FC Dallas: 3,062,327 Also Montreal reached 100k in their 3rd match, becoming just the 3rd team to do it in 3 or less. Current to Season End Comparison + Predictive: Just a quick refresher. The predicitive uses the forecast function (a Linear Regression) in excel and takes into account where every season was at this point, and where it ended, and where this season is at, and then makes a best guess where this season will end. Obviously the closer we get to seasons end the more accurate this prediction becomes. Code: Year Current End Diff % Diff 1996 22982 17410 -5572 -24.2% 1997 16370 14606 -1764 -10.8% 1998 14765 14312 -453 -3.1% 1999 13975 14282 307 2.2% 2000 12987 13756 769 5.9% 2001 15058 14961 -97 -0.6% 2002 15763 15821 58 0.4% 2003 13789 14900 1111 8.1% 2004 15381 15549 168 1.1% 2005 14145 15112 967 6.8% 2006 16195 15426 -769 -4.7% 2007 14855 16767 1912 12.9% 2008 15721 16460 739 4.7% 2009 14906 16037 1131 7.6% 2010 15796 16675 879 5.6% 2011 17487 17869 382 2.2% 2012 18368 16567 -1801 -9.8%
Edward, what's driving down the predictor for 2012? Only five years in MLS history did the final average fall below the season to date for this time - and those years were mostly the early years. I'm going to look into this a bit; I think a decent model can be built given all the available data.
When I saw the 2012 # my first thought was... lol, here we go again.... and then your post immediately followed right on cue. Edward and others do a better job explaining it; suffice to say that early in league history early season numbers were much better than late season numbers (96&97 weigh heavily). Believe me it's been discussed ad nauseam. Just remember to take the current year number with a large grain of salt.
To answer revolt and Evangel. The sharp drop off the first two seasons appear to have huge impact on the predictive model. Without 1996 the predictive says 17651 for the season average, without 1996 and 1997 the predictive says 18214 for the season average. I am sure there is a better way of modeling this that would be fairly reliable. I am not a statistician so I do not know what other elements would be useful. The way the predictive works at present is to take the current point of the season by %, and the end point of each season, and the forecast this season's end point based on where this season is at. Here is the formula. Cell C18 =FORECAST(B18,C2:C17,B2:B17) It is entirely possible that the range is to great. Perhaps if I narrowed to 5 year chunks it may be a better indicator.
Hi Ed, As always thanks for the great work! I am wondering if the above statement is true. Wouldn't 1996 still be #1 in the old AAQ and 2012 would be tied with 2011? 1996: (1+1+1+4)/4 = 1.75 2011: (3+2+2+2)/4 = 2.25 2012: (2+3+1+3)/4 = 2.25
You are correct. I copy and paste from the previous week so I keep the same 'template' and just failed to remove that line. I did state later that this week would fall to 2nd in the original. I will also move that back into the correct location, as for some reason I originally had it at the end of the tables.
What's going on with DCU ,FCD, Rapids, Crew and the worst of all Chivas , four of the clubs play in their SSS [counting Chivas] and should have learned the FO blue prints for bringing butts to the seat by now. The staff in these teams need a refresher course or better GMs to make sure they're in same page as the rest of the league.
Another one. Dallas is up 15% over their all-time attendance, Columbus is up 19% from this point last year, Colorado is up 9.5% from this point last year, 3.8% all-time, and that's immediately after what will be one of the worst (if not worst) weekend games for attendance. Yes, they aren't LA, Portland, Seattle, etc. but they're going in the right direction, finally. Particularly in Dallas and Colorado who had the staff/GM issues int he past and have finally started to figure it out. Your rant would have been more appropriate in a past year instead of one where the teams are making positive moves. Chivas and DC are down in both categories and that is concerning as there's no positive sign of turning around.
Move them all! In all seriousness now - whether it's a "rising tide lifts all ships" or the result of positive moves by their front offices (or both), it's very encouraging to see the increases in those teams.
If you say so. The funny thing is I was at Best Buy today and someone was playing with Airplay on an iPad3 and somehow Rapids highlights from last night popped up on a big screen tv with AirPlay feature build in and people in the store were asking where's this stadium with so many empty seats.
Yep, because as we've seen one data point is a great thing to base a judgement of a team's FO on. Just ignore all those numbers that started this thread.
Thanks, of course, for all of your great work. I am not in any way criticizing your work, just wanted to expand on this a bit. Seems that we have at least two "MLSs" reflected in the attendance. The simple model is to take all of the seasons into account, but this does not really tell the whole story. I am no statistician either, but it seems that a better predictor model may be to take only MLS 2.0, or as close as possible. It seems, in my mind, that a clear delineation occurred about 10 years ago, after contraction of the Florida teams. Perhaps the predictor can simply use the previous 10 years as the better predictor model instead of incorporating MLS 1.0 in there.
i get that as a Rapids fan Jasonma feels it is his role to be an apologist for the old school MLS teams that are MLS attendance bottom feeders. but sometimes you just need to call a spade a spade. there is one simple fact in 2012. there is a group of 10 teams (soon to be 11 with Houston joining that group) all averaging at or above 17.5K a game ... and then there are 8 teams (actually 7 since it is hard to fault SJE who are selling out every game) that are averaging at or below 14.5K a game. that is a huge giant gaping hole between the upper class, those teams that have making their teams relevant in their markets and getting fans to attend games figured out and, and the lower class of MLS that haven't even come close to figuring it out yet. and yes, some of those teams in the lower class are slightly less pathetic this year than they were in previous years when they were extremely pathetic. while fans of those teams trying to rationalize this all away clamour about having "taken a step in the right direction" they forget that the league as a whole and those 11 in the upper class have taken 3 steps forward so that still leaves them 2 steps behind. so feel free to rejoice in small Pyrrhic statistical victories and/or being the "best" of the "worst" but the fact remains there are two groups in MLS right now when it comes to attendance ... the upper and the lower class and the gap between the two is pretty vast and i am sure something that has the league at least somewhat concerned. what would be interesting instead of trying to deny or rationalize why these 7 teams are lagging so far behind is figure out what factors they all have in common that might be why they are all roughly grouped together in the attendance dumpster. one thing to consider is how having an ownership group solely (or almost soley) dedicated to the MLS team comes into play. the LAG seem to be the only team with an ownership group where MLS is not the only/top priority where both on and off the field they are successful. TFC does well off the field but on the field are pathetic ... so their ownership being focused on more than just TFC seems to have at least some negative correlation. Colorado (Kronke: Arsenal/Niggets/Avalanche) FCD/Columbus (Hunt: Chiefs) New England (Kraft: Patriots) Chivas (Veraga: Chivas Guad) SJ (Wolff: As) and i know that DCU's Chang has some small invlovement with a MLB team i think ... and isn't local for sure. Chicago's owner Hauptman seems to have no other sports interest so doesn't fit this. where as the upper class aside LAG and TFC as noted above: SKC: OnGoal (only own SKC) Portland: Paulson (only owns Timbers) Seattle: 3/4ths of the ownership's sole focus is Sounders Montreal: Saputo (only owns Impact) Vacouver: ownership only owns Whitecaps Philadelphia: Keystone (only own Union) RSL: (Checketts: also owns Blues, seems to be a counterpoint to the trend) Houston/LAG: AEG (multiple sports interests, seem to be a counter point to the trend) NYRB: RedBull has many many other sports interests and RBNY does seem to struggle despite on and off the field despite being in the upper attendance echelon so while it is nothing 100% definitive there does seem to be some correlation between having an ownership group that is all or mostly solely focused on the MLS team and "success" (losely defined by on and off field success) and with a few exceptions it seems the MLS teams with ownerships that have other sports interests beside/more important than the MLS team tend to struggle on or off the field in some way. again nothing super definitive just an interesting tidbit that i wonder if maybe it is significant.
Yeah, because you've never come off as somebody with an ax to grind or anything. My point is that for years we've heard about how awful Dallas/Columbus/Colorado are. Now that those teams are turning ti around and making significant steps forward you just can't give up your desire to have "winners and losers" and still have to call them out. I've said (now multiple times) that I'm not claiming that things are good or in a level like KC or LA. What I am saying is that instead of finding another thing to complain about lets take a step back and realize that we've got forward momentum in these past struggling markets. And yes, there is a difference between Dallas/Columbus/Colorado and DC/Chivas. The former are moving forward by being ahead of either their 2011 or career numbers (or both). The latter are behind both those measures. That should be the concern because they are, up to this point this season, going the wrong way.
It is not well known that a corporate real estate mogul named Dell Loy Hansen is now the majority owner of RSL. Checketts is the front man, Hansen is the businessman.
A. they are still "awful" ... they are just slightly less awful than before B. if by significant you mean small then yes, they are making "significant" steps forward ... but again ... while they are taking one step forward the rest of the league has taken 3 steps forward ... so they are still 2 steps behind. C. it isn't my desire to put MLS into two groups ... you are going to have to blame that on the math ... 11 teams above at or above 17.5K and 8 teams below 14.5K seems to say all that needs to be said about how MLS breaks down in terms of attendance. D. you never seem to list all of the teams that Colorado is "not on the level" of at once ... you always seem to pick a couple each time ... lets look at them all together: LA, Portland, Seattle, Vancouver, Salt Lake, Kansas City, Houston, Philadelphia, Toronto, Montreal, New York ... look a bit different when you put them all together eh. E. "forward momentum in these past struggling markets" ... the momentum is minimal and their struggles are not of the past but still in the present. look ... i am absolutely in agreement that any improvement in these bottom teams is better than no improvement ... but let's not get all happy slappy about it ... there is still a huge disparity and it seems to be getting bigger. the league used to have a top, a middle and a bottom when it came to attendance ... now it seems to have stratified into two distinct groups ... the good and the not so good (how not so good is hardly that important). and while the league as a whole is chugging along quite nicely in attendance this is a trend that really cannot be good for the health of the league ... to have a permanent attendance underclass of 7 teams. and yes, while the rising tide of MLS overall seems to be lifting some of the boats in the underclass a bit those teams are still rising less than the teams in the upper class and they are still part of a group falling further behind as evidenced by the vast 3K a game gap that has opened up in the middle of the league. but enough of this ... it is a never ending debate with no real answer ... i am off to post some hard numbers.