Ken, your analysis of attendance is always first-rate, but as others have pointed out the average for the ten teams currently in MLS was 15,851 for the 2001 season. Also, many of those teams lost out on their home finales, which quite possibly could have pushed their average attendance to around 16,000 for 2001. That's why I view anything below 15,800 as disappointing, though certainly not a tragedy. On the other hand, anything over 17,500 is a brilliant success. Last year the Crew posted a profit with an average in this range, and it was probably a profit according to the most stringent of criterea--even after the losses from other teams were calculated into their expenses. In all likelihood, with a ten-team league attendance average of 16,000, an individual team average of 17,500 represents definate profitability--under all MLS definitions of the term--for Columbus, Colorado, New England, Kansas City and, next year, LA. So, in the interests of clarity, here is my glossary of attendance adjectives: 20,000+ = Sweet--"let's talk expansion NOW!" 17,500-20,000 = Excellent--"brilliant success" 15,851-17,499 = Good--"progress being made" 12,400-15,850 = Disappointing--"progess not being made" 10,000-12,399 = Bad--"is the league in trouble?" under 10,000 = Oh ************--"is the league about to fold?"
[homer simpson] You know those tennis balls people put on their antenna so they can find their car? Every car should have one of those! [/homer simpson] Seriously though, 30k probably ain't gonna happen in my lifetime, but obviously the Ukrainian Night thing helped at least a little bit last night in Chicago (unless they gave away 10K free tickets to Napervillians - that number sure would be interesting). I know it's taboo to discuss marketing to ethnic populations because we know that it doesn't work long-term (at least the way they've done it so far) but the Fire would do well to make sure the Ukrainian neighborhoods are papered with flyers before upcoming home games. Even if only 50 people show up from it, that's 50 more than they would have had otherwise. Of course, they should be doing this in every neighborhood.
Very nice for the MLS. Almost 16k in Chicago and 18k in Columbus. Very nice for the middle of the weak, and almost two sellouts. Ukraine night in Chicago was a brilliant idea. Next week should be Polish night.
originally posted by jwinters: Team : Columbus Games: 12 2002 att.: 16,427 games 01' : 13 01' att. : 17,511 difference: -6.2 % needed att. to match 01' : 24,015 never count out C'bus, I wouldnt be surprised if we pulled of that needed att. number C-bus will pull through
already had Polish night. and we had Ukranian night last year, by the way. the BIG reason for the large crowd was the Naperville Night events, I would guarantee you that a very large part of that crowd last night was from the Naperville/Lisle, IL area.
As it has been for a good part of the year. But last night was multiplied by quite a bit. And I know the numbers without Miami and Tampa Bay are slightly off from last year's numbers if you take Miami and Tampa Bay out. What did you expect? That there was going to be a 1,000-a-game bump just from that? They weren't dragging the average down 1,000 a game (okay, it was 890, it would have been slightly higher if you contracted SJ and KC instead, over 1,000 if you'd just done TB and SJ), how were they going to make a huge increase by going away? Chicago moves, that knocks off whatever increase you were going to get from at least one of those teams going, and there's always going to be something, some reason why somebody went down, attendance doesn't simply rise and rise and rise exponentially. Doesn't happen. monster's younger than me (I think) and when I said we wouldn't get to 25-30k per game in my lifetime, I got pilloried for it (by some folks who should know better, too). Once again: incremental victories. This is a long campaign, you're not going to see huge gains overnight. The effects of the World Cup won't be felt for a while. We're making progress. Quit finding the dark cloud in every silver lining, and quit having totally unrealistic expectations for our sport.
Ken, I never meant to imply that you didn't know the avergae from last year without Miami and TB--if anyone is aware of attendance figures such as this, it would certainly be you. Your previous work on MLS attendance analysis is, quite simply, the best there is or ever has been. I view maintaining the 15,851 non-Miami and TB mean as a pretty good victory. If the ten remaining teams could pull that off, especially with Chicago's numbers unavoidably being down, progress has definately been made. Consolidation of a previous gain is always a victory. I am perfectly well aware that attendance will not just rise on a stragiht linear slope--nothing works that way. Perhaps my orginal phrasing was too strong. Perhaps I should have stated my thoughts on the subject more clearly: I believe that 15,851 should be viewed as the target mean for MLS this year. For reasons already given, achieving this figure would be a solid victory. I would be disappointed if MLS did not achieve 15,851. On a more defensive note, if it is fair to say that my hoping for a mean of 15,851 in a league that currently has a mean of 15,624 is unrealistic and an example of finding a dark cloud in every silver lining, then it is euqally fair to say that some people have become a little too sensitive about the progress of "our sport" in this country.
You know somebody missed giving the magic incantations: 1. "Pathetic" 2. "It looked more people than that." et al.
right after they have that Springfield, IL night (population = me and jmeisson0 and my LHS soccer team), we'll do that for you
Move Chicago. Oh, wait, they're going to do that in 2004 anyway. photar, points taken. No offense taken. I'm just not going to cry if the average at the end of the year is 15,600 or something.
True, but you'd then have to strap Mike into one of those Hannibal Lecter restraints so the other passengers could stay calm during the flight.
What are Naperville Night Events? They should have those more often. Anyway a sell out is good no matter how you look at it. With school starting soon, we have to take whatever we can get in fans attending games.
The question is, was the large crowd because of freebies (because if it was, then the Fire lost money because they had to turn away folks at the ticket booth who were willing to pay). I know that the two Wednesday matches in August were designated as Naperville nights. My understanding was that locals would be given a discount to the regular ticket prices on those nights. It has been reported elsewhere that the locals were given free tickets. I don't know what the actual situation is/was. I would agree that if the incentive was discounted prices, then it was probably worth it. If, on the other hand, the crowd was merely due to people getting in free, then I'm not sure that that was a good deal (for the Fire).
i believe that one was a discount of around $5 off any ticket if you had proof of living in naperville (driver's licsense, mail, etc.) yesterday was a free giveway for the local neighbors... there might have also been a discount, not sure but from the atmosphere reported, i think a lot of the people could be coming back
Another one? Oh boy, I already have read many threads, they keep to say Move KC, Move San Jose, Move Miami, Move Tampa Bay and now Move Chicago. You give me an explosive headache
There was only one Wednesday night match in August. The July 31 DC match wasn't a "Naperville Night" per se, and it only drew 10,444.
i'm not saying it was a wednesday... but wasn't there a day with a ticket price decrease for area residents? or was that ALL this past wednesday? (the ticket decrease and the freebies?)