Reply With Quote
Nice! Top 3 the past 4 years!
http://sports.espn.go.com/chat/sport...franchiseRanks
How about them Spurs?The best franchise in sports? The Spurs, according to our ESPN The Magazine/SportsNation fan satisfaction survey. See where your team ranks.
Last edited by TwoHandJam; 12-07-2005 at 02:08 PM.
Nice! Top 3 the past 4 years!
It's surprising how on the CHA "championship" parameter the Detroit Pistons franchise was rated higher.....
Their definition: "CHA (Championships): les already won or expected -- soon"
Last year's top-ranked team moved up in six of eight categories, only to be beaten out by the Spurs (sound familiar?).
Wow, didn't realize that we had THAT many season ticket holders. BTW, the Saints were ranked dead last in these standing (the Bobcats have an N/A rating).Meanwhile, since moving from the football field-size Alamodome, which never sold out, to the SBC Center in 2002, the Spurs have built a Rolodex of 11,500 season ticket-holders and 56 luxury-suite occupants. Now they sell out every night, and the Spurs use their high-end ticket sales to keep prices low throughout the rest of SBC.
I just wrote a private e-mail to a friend at ESPN to ask what the heck is up with Detroit with a better CHA rating myself.
I like the Spurs
The Alamodome NEVER sold out? Huh?
Not only that, but how the Angels(1) , D-backs(2), and BoSox(4) have a better CHA rating.
- Angels, one championship in team history [2002]?
- BoSox, one in the last 75 years or so?
- Diamondbacks, one WS in '01 and DNQ for the playoffs the last two years? Not even a .500 team last year.
Those are some effed-up rankings.
If I'm not mistaken, the rankings are all based on fan opinion. So, I assume that when asked how satisfied or happy they are with how many championships each team has won or will win, I guess Detroit fans were just a little more pleased than San Antonio fans. I would guess that's why the Boston Red Sox ranked so high in CHA despite winning only one in 86 years. And, if you think about it, Detroit won a championship and lost in game 7 of the finals in the last two years, while the Spurs won the championship, but lost in the second round the year before. I'm not saying it warrants the difference in ranking. I'm just giving a possible reason for it.
It's based on what the fans of each respective team feel. With not much of a rich history, maybe the Diamondback fans are just very appreciative that they had that one world series win over the Yankees.
Same thing with the Angels after years and years of a world series championship eluding that storied franchise.
The rankings are essentially based on a type of fan poll.
Don't be so outraged. It's almost as if some of you are borderline pissed about something that is based on the opinions of biased fans.
Anaheim is #1 in CHA, so the formula has got to be something not straightforward.
OWN (Ownership): Honesty; loyalty to players and city
Spurs #1. (dissenting votes: timvp, Marcus Bryant)
I don't think so. Because everytime they would sell out the basketball configuration, they'd just move the curtain over and open up more seats.
Exactly right.
From ESPN's site:
http://sports.espn.go.com/chat/sport...eMethod-051205Second, through ESPN.com, we asked fans of every MLB, NBA and NFL team to rate their clubs in these 21 topics. Each user was allowed to rate one team per sport, and we gathered more than 30,000 responses. For example, according to their own fans, the Green Bay Packers topped all franchises in "has a fan-friendly environment at games," while Kansas City Royals fans gave scores that ranked their club last in "keeps its core players."
Third, we grouped the responses for the 21 topics into eight broad categories. For seven of these categories, we used the data collected from fans: Affordability, Championships (past and potential), Coaching, Fan Relations, Ownership, Players (quality and appeal) and Stadium (or Arena) Experience.
Edited to add:
The one objectively ranked category they have is "Bang for the Buck," which "examined how efficiently teams have converted dollars received from fans into on-field wins (regular season and postseason) over the past three seasons." The Spurs rank third overall in this category, and for some reason the Pistons rank 2nd.
Since the Spurs have had the better record over the last three seasons, one would have to assume that Pistons fans spend less money on the Pistons than Spurs fans on the Spurs. That would explain the difference in ranking despite San Antonio having more wins over that period.
Spurs since 2002-2003: 214 wins, 89 losses (playoffs 38-19)
Pistons since 2002-2003: 197 wins, 114 losses (playoffs 39-26)
The Spurs fans were also rated as some of the most obnoxious people in the NBA by the referees...
Yep, you're right. Spurs fans are a bunch of lowlifes. , everytime we win a championship we go out and riot and burn cars.The Spurs fans were also rated as some of the most obnoxious people in the NBA by the referees...
Oh, wait...
haha
Given the relative market sizes, that's really surprising to me. I'm certainly not surprised that they're the two highest ranking teams in the category, but I would have thought the Pistons had more revenue.
The "bang for your buck" category appears to be a ratio. That does not mean the Spurs make more revenue than the Pistons. It means that per dollar spent, the ratio of wins in return are greater than the Spurs' ratio.
I'm no mathematician and I don't know the exact formula used, but the formula could have included jersey and hat sales, game brochures, posters, and other expenditures that are variables in translating into the wins. Maybe the Palace has cheaper parking, cheaper apparel, cheaper beer and pizza vendors. So, it might be a "cheaper experience" to go to a Pistons game. But, I don't think it necessarily means that the Spurs had more revenue. But, who knows?
The refs tried to rate the Laker fans, but haven't been able to find any after the third quarter for the last two years . . .The Spurs fans were also rated as some of the most obnoxious people in the NBA by the referees...
Good point -- overall, the Spurs have a very affordable "experience," but the Pistons could be even better in that respect, at least for the metric they used.
the Alamodome never sold out? That's bogus. just cuz it was a football stadium? we filled more than 18,979 seats at the dome even when they didn't open it up.
Hey, I'm not *outraged*. If the fans in Boston have such low expectations that they're happy with one championship since 1920, fine.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
