So tell us Bung, how high would attendance be without Seattle? I'm waiting for your answer with baited breath.
Why does it matter? is my question. Should they be in a separate category so as not to include them in the attendance average?
What would attendance be without San Jose and Kansas City's numbers, which are artificially low due to the reduced capacities of their temporary venues? Seems like an equally valid question.
Many leagues around the world have extreme attendance outliers...Barcelona and Real Madrid average more than double La Liga attendance. So what? Doesn't make a difference who is raking it in at the gate, it counts for MLS all the same.
can we all just agree the sportsdouche 1 and his alter ego falcon are annoying ******** and go on with our days?
If Seattle doesn't count, then you obviously can't count 1996 in the attendance rankings because in that year there were 10 expansion teams, so none of those numbers count. I'd also like to throw out all games where teams played in limited capacity stadiums which artificially lowered our attendance. That means no KC games count and 12 of the San Jose games at Buck Shaw must be thrown out. Without those horrible aberrations to the attendance numbers, we averaged 16,872.48 for the year. And since 1996 obviously doesn't count....well guess what? We just had our best attendance year ever!!!!!! Great job MLS!
Actually, 14k for SJ is higher then their historical average and 10K for KC is slightly less then their historical average. So the small stadiums had little effect.
I was just pointing out that most MLS teams were down this year for attendance. Many significantly. Seattle's success gave a false belief that this year wasn't "that bad" as Sachsen's post implied. BTW, its not a knock on MLS with the economy and all. It was to be expected.
Except that Seattle does count, as did David Beckham's Galaxy tour in 2007. To allay your fears we have this little thing thing called a MEDIAN (some tried to point this out to you a few pages back but apparently you need reminders) which shows that the leagues MEDIAN attendance (through 31 games) is 14,611 which is the 4th best ever, in line with the average which is the 4th best ever. So while most teams were down this year in attendance, many teams were up over 2005 and 2006. Hence why people are saying that the numbers this year are not bad. Are you following the logic here or was that over your head as well?
You know, ticket sales and marketing people all throughout the league suck. If you take out the attendances of all 15 teams, we have an average of zero. Which is pathetic.
So...because Seattle makes it look like most of the league didn't drop double digits in attendance we ignore it?
Well if that were true you might have a point (but probably not) but since only 5 teams were down more than 10% in attendance you're statement is off base. http://www.majorleaguesoccertalk.com/take-me-out-to-the-ballgame-week-32/6788#more-6788 LA, DC, Chicago, NE, and NY were down more than 10%, Toronto, Houston, FSL and SJ all increased attendance this year, but less than 3%.
No, you get a divide by Zero error. Or perhaps more accurately, as the number of teams approach Zero, the Average approaches infinity. WE ROCK!!!!!
I came close to this number... avg: 16.029 They have their numbers close to 16.037 Take Me Out to the Ballgame – Week 32 Major League Soccer Talk
If the NHL expanded to a place where 65K people could attend games...and this offset what would of been a league wide 15 percent drop in attendance..ballpark figure... you guys would be all over it. this year when MLB was falsely reported at a double digit drop in attendance because of size of ballpark error....people here were all over it... it took a couple of objective posters to point that out. the fact is: MLS attendance this year was 16,037(well that is paid/comp/distributed) without the huge success Seattle it would be: 14,975 and you think that is straw man?? We added Seattle and attendance finished at 16,037...without them its lower. by over 1000K... is is a perfect comparison? NO. but with all things being equal....it is very likely without Seattle attendance would of been around 15K. how is that not a good observation?
Because you're using it to imply that there's something wrong with the health of the league that Seattle's arrival and success is masking. Even though it's probably more plausible that Seattle's marketing and attendance success (and Toronto's and probably Philly's...) actually suggest the opposite, i.e. that the league is actually laying the foundation for real future growth, even in a serious global recession. The median attendance hasn't moved too much even in very difficult times, and ownership groups are lining up to pay money to join the league. Moreover, as other people have pointed out, if you eliminate the Beckham effect (and the Blanco effect) from 2007 and 2008, you also get a notable drop in attendance for those years. Does that mean that Beckham and Blanco masked underlying frailties in the league during those years? Or does it simply indicate that, in some years, some factors drive attendance up while other drive them down, and that you pay attention to how those balance out rather than what would have happened if you were to eliminate one factor? Personally, I think that if you want to start eliminating unusual factors or outliers, you should compensate for the recession, which almost surely affected this year's league averages far more than Seattle did.
When you tack 15 of the highest numbers on to the end of the data, you're going to get a significantly higher median.