TEAM ATTENDANCE TOTALS TEAM........................RECORD..GAMES..TOTAL....AVERAGE ------------------------- Colorado Rapids........... 13-11-4...14...289,663...20,690... Los Angeles Galaxy...... 16-9-3...14...266,664...19,047 MetroStars................. 11-15-2...14...254,174...18,155 Columbus Crew............ 11-12-5...14...243,999...17,429 N.E. Revolution............ 12-14-2...14...236,973...16,927 D.C. United................. 9-14-5...14...231,264...16,519 Dallas Burn................. 12-9-7...14...183,702...13,122 Chicago Fire............... 11-13-4...14...180,908...12,922 Kansas City Wizards..... 9-10-9...14...171,568...12,255 San Jose Earthquakes.. 14-11-3...14...156,104...11,150 OVERALL................................140...2,215,019...15,822 I know these numbers are old news, but as i look at them, one thing jumps out at me: a large gap in average attendance between the top 6 teams and the bottom 4 teams. It doesn't seem to indicate that fans come because the team is doing well, S.J. is last and N.Y. is third. Is the sport advertised more in these 6 cities or do you have any ideas why there is this gap and what can be done to bring the bottom teams up, attendance wise? Or it very well could be i'm making a big deal over nothing.
I think the biggest difference between top teams attendance wise and the bottom teams is the amount of doubleheaders these top teams attract. The markets with a higher percentage of enthinicities tend to market more doubleheaders which explains the "gap" you are seeing. That also stands true for teams like Colorado who have their annual 4th of July game which helps them out tremendously. Atleast thats my guess.
Chicago is only in the bottom 4 because they play in Naperville, otherwise they would be in the top half. Dallas has always been an iffy soccer town since the days of the NASL. KC has been improving recently and should only get better. SJ is due to poor management and horrendous teams in the beginning of MLS. On a positive note, Dallas,KC, and SJ have been improving and should only get better. SJ is now owned by AEG so I'm sure you'll see them run much better. Chicago moves back to Soldier field in 2004 and their attendance should be back in the 17k range again.
on the down side: dallas may be moving into a much smaller stadium which won't help the attendance average presumably, and the "new stadium effect" at colorado and new england will have worn off. if nj and dc get good again, their attendance numbers should improve, as should la's in a new stadium, although if they don't play their july 4 game in the rose bowl, this may prove difficult as well. hopefully aeg will put some money into marketing the earthquakes and we'll see a bump there, and the "crusaders drive" in KC reaps some benefits. also, some good weather in columbus would presumably help attendance there as well.
-i don't think colorado really had a new stadium effect... they had 3 awesome attendance draws: women's national game DH, men's national game (vs our biggest rival, mexico), and july 4th so they are going to go down, but how much is the question... hopefully they will come up with some ideas that will help things out -ne should be ok, as they just went to the title game (in their own stadium) and should have plenty of hype for this coming year -kc has hunt pushing things with the crusaders... that's great to see -if dallas is at the smaller venue and selling out, i don't care what the total is (~12k is what i believe it would hold) -and having aeg providing stability in san jose can only be a positive... they made a solid improvement from 2001, with the league pushing donovan's face out there and more money for marketing the team... things should be better for the quakes -falcon... i don't believe chicago has ever avg 17k
San Jose is a big problem. They have a large fan pool to draw from. They are good and have one of the presumeably biggest fan attractors in Landon Donovan. How they can get outdrawn by Columbus, Dallas, and KC just tells me that they are doing a very poor job running the team.
Year....G....Total..........Average 1998...16...286,190...17,887 1999...16...256,261...16,016 2000...16...214,189...13,387 2001...14...229,438...16,388 2002...14...180,908...12,922
MD_05, welcome to the boards.... The above poster has a great synopsis of MLS attendence here Check it out.
It's no secret that the San jose market has been under-performing for the last several years in terms of attendance. That said, I am optimistic that the situation is improving and the attendance figures for the 2003 season will be an improvement. As a point of reference, just over the course of last year, the average attendance grew by several thousand per game (first couple of months were well under 10,000 but the last couple months were closer to 15,000)
One of the big arguments about Colorado is that their attendance is always based only on the 4th and double headers. Obviously, when you've got something as big as the 4th, that's got to be true in part, especially when Colorado is one of the few teams than can draw only 4k on Wednesday. But what I like about Colorado is that they do well with less big ticket promotions (I mean, jersey night there always seems to draw well). There might not be as many hardcore BS fans in Colorado, but whoever it is there doesn't need much of an excuse to go to a game. So what's the real story there? Is Colorado actually a model for other teams because, despite not having many hardcore fans, they get a decent number of casual fans out anyway? Or is it that Colorado's demographics mean that the fans are hardcore and love osccer, but have to pick and choose their games (and don't buy season tickets) and need just a little bit of coaxing?
Actually 8 out of 14 of Colorado's regular season home games were above the average of the bottom 4 teams, and 5 of the games were above the league average, with a 6th within a few hundred of the league average. In 2001 the Rapids had more gaves above the league average than Miami, TB, SJ, andd KC, and only one less than D.C. and N.E. (Both of which hosted a doubleheader with a WCQ that Colorado didn't get that season). As much as some BS posters like to assume that Colorado's attendance is all due to the 4th of July game and doubleheaders kpaulson had it right, it's a very good ticket office that's getting the job done on a game by game basis that's responsible for Colorado's attendance. I nvever understood why there was a stigma attached to Colorado's attendance numbers and the effect the 4th of July game has anyway. Last time I checked, money collected on the 4th of July was worth as much as money collected in April or September. If the Rapids have done such a good job building up this event year after year, why shouldn't that be a good thing that's reflected in their totals, instead of being discounted? Obviously the Rapids wouldn't lead the league without 4th of July and/or doubleheaders, but they wouldn't be sitting at the back of the pack either.
I think any "gap" in attendance is much improved over previous years in MLS and MUCH better than the huge attendance gaps present in the old NASL... In the first few years of MLS you could point to about half the teams as having "Move San Jose" attendance figures... KC, Tampa, Colorado, Dallas, Miami, and after a few dismal seasons on the field the ugly downward spiral that is San Jose. After contraction and a turnaround in Denver, a ten-team MLS has a minority of teams in this "gap"-- KC and SJ (both teams still were at least over the 10K per game mark), a team in Chicago with over 12K per game due to the stadium situation and a Dallas team with over 13K (still an improvement). Compare these figures to the hey-days of the NASL in the late 70s/early 80s and you'd see a NY Cosmos team averaging 35 to 45K with precious few others over the 20K per game mark while teams in larger markets like Atlanta, Philly, Dallas and Houston averaged 5-7,000 fans per game... how's that for pathetic? Hopefully, MLS has learned enough from its problems with ownership/marketing/fan support to make sure it expands to cities where a new franchise can give the league a needed "shot in the arm" rather than the "shot in the foot" we got from the Fusion in Miami. Can ownership with new stadia in Seattle, Houston, Rochester, OKC, Tulsa, Philly, St. Paul, et. al. give the league more healthy numbers in that 15-20K area?... It'd better. The league really can't afford any more experiments with ownerless franchises or clubs that sink the league's viability with sparse crowds and red ink.
I don't think Go's being a troll. But the joke may have run its course. There was a bigger gap between the top and the bottom of the NASL because (a) there were, for the most part, many more teams (more than twice as many at its peak) (b) the Cosmos reached as high as 47k, and (c) there were a lot of really poorly-run franchises in the wrong areas. And those "conclusions" are kinda old. I will get to it eventually, promise.
Ugh, We have beaten this horse a few times before. I see to remember we finally came to the conclusion that there has been a statistically significant change in MLS attendance with respect to clustering around the mean. In other words MLS's standard deviation for attendance has been dropping. Attendance at most MLS games is become quite consitent and is increasing, slowly but steadily. We are also seeing fewer and fewer sub 10,000 game attendances. Obviously, that is a good thing.
i'm thinking you read what i said wrong it was written understanding what they've done, yet realizing that things *are* going to be harder without those 2 usnt doubleheaders
If not repetitively posting the same unconstructive and baiting post over and over and over isn't trolling - then what is? Yeah, he used to contribute constructively, but what has he posted lately? Showing up to lob shells is tiresome and annoying. Let the jerks and newbies bring the crap to the thread. I'm just sick of it.
Dunno. I just thought it was more like the Inside Joke than something that was intended as trolling. I can't speak for Go, but that's how I took it. Like "Fixed your post" and "Cap Freddy Adu" and "looked like more on TV", there are some things that appear to be more or less obligatory around here. Right or wrong.
It's the smell test (or pornography test). Hard to explain, easier to tell. "Fixed your post" is almost always a different post and a different fix, but the the repetive, snide crap like "cap Rickets now", especially when the poster knows better, quickly goes from cute and funny, to tired and droll, to outright trolling. A preemptive "move San Jose" or "move Kansas City" is trolling at this point. Just because "some other idiot will post it" is not a valid defense. It's trolling. I normally like Go's stuff, so I'd hate to put him in my ignore list. But I'll do it if he keeps trolling attendance threads. It's not like he adds anything to the discussion. Is it?