@gftchris said:

Right.....and that is why the term used in that study "Fan Equity" is such a bogus label. What the fuck are these assholes trying to say?

Ownership provides an obviously loyal, passionate fanbase a pile of shit year after year after year and these dickwads think that the measurement of loyalty is how much they spend on tickets?

At least give the Browns credit.....they know they have fucked their loyal fans over by providing a consistently poor product, and as a result they have kept the cost low.

At least there is a certain amount of what I would call "fan equity" in that.

@gftchris said:

Yea, sorry, I think these guys are just trying to put together a study where the overriding factor is money.....not loyalty, sportsmanship etc. They are "marketing people"......only interested in the marketing aspect, not the fan aspect.

My daughter is a sports marketing and management minor....I am going to e-mail this link to her and see what she says.

@gftchris said:

Well, this does not factor in true "fandom"...in my view. How much is spent on buying a team's shit?

That is a total FRAK factor. Teams that win attract the FRAKs....FRAKs buy the NFL shit.

Long term shitty teams don't attract the FRAKs. It has absolutely nothing to do with fan loyalty....but the size of the fan base plus which is also very much geared to the size of a market. They give NY Jet fans a high ranking. Well.....there are 20 million people in the NYC area, compared to about 3 million here. Of course a team from a much much larger populated area is going to sell more shit. As for Dallas, even without their nationwide tits and ass backers, they have a huge natural fan base. Combine Dallas/Ft. Worth/San Antonio/Austin....and you have a populace about as large as the LA area.

So, absolutely this study is completely flawed at what it seems to be trying to measure: fan Loyalty.

Stuart said:

"It’s one thing to just say you are a fan of a local team, and quite another to be willing to pay several thousand dollars to purchase a season ticket."

Of course, it never occurred to them that Browns fans might demand a well-run organization before rewarding a tone-deaf Ahole owner with their money.

http://www.cleveland.com/pluto/index.ssf/2015/07/cleveland_browns_have_terry_ta_11.html

@the-gipper said:

It simply says they use won-loss records, it doesn't imply what you stated. They're using 15 yrs. of data so perhaps a 7-9 Dallas team that sucked did much better than a 7-9 Cleveland team that sucked. I don't know, just guessing.

They said they used it as one of the factors....I said they used it as one of the factors.....They said the exact same thing I said...except I said it was stupid.

And....absolutely they infer that having a winning record is a factor in fan loyalty. I don't what you were reading.

You said...

"Team performance?" "Won-Loss record" They must believe having a fan based on a pile of FRAKs is a good thing. They clearly believe apparently that only the winningest teams can have the best fans.

I said there's no evidence that they were using wins losses in a way that presumes a 14-2 must have better fans than a 2-14 team...as you just presumed they did. I agree, that would be just too ridiculous.

I said that they could be using wins losses in an apples to apples comparison...comparing fan loyalty to a 2-14 Dallas team to the fan loyalty of a 2-14 Cleveland team for example. Which team had the better fans during down times.

Boy do you sound snarky today! You are clearly upset over the results of this study.

Stuart said:

@the-gipper said:

we use fifteen years of data on NFL team performance, ticket prices, market populations, median incomes, won-loss records and multiple other factors. We create statistical models of box office revenue, and then see which teams over- and under- perform the model’s predictions. [/size]

See the above quote...and note how bogus it is in terms of measuring fan loyalty.[/size]

"Team performance?" "Won-Loss record" [/size]They must believe having a fan based on a pile of FRAKs is a good thing. They clearly believe apparently that only the winningest teams can have the best fans.[/size]

It simply says they use won-loss records, it doesn't imply what you stated. They're using 15 yrs. of data so perhaps a 7-9 Dallas team that sucked did much better than a 7-9 Cleveland team that sucked. I don't know, just guessing.

Did you see the "Social Media Equity"? metric. Cleve moves up to #13 on this one....but as far as fair weather fans, Cleve is in the top 10...ouch!

Our social media equity metric is similar in spirit to our fan equity measure, but rather than focus on revenues we use social community size as the key dependent measure. The calculation of social media equity involves a statistical model that predicts social media community size as a function of market characteristics and current season performance. Social media equity is then based on a comparison of actual versus predicted social media following.

The social media equity metric provides two key advantages relative to the revenue-premium metric. Since social media following is not constrained by stadium size and does not require fans to make a financial sacrifice, this metric provides 1) a measure of unconstrained demand and 2) avoids assumptions about owner’s pricing decisions.

Scroll to mid page.

https://scholarblogs.emory.edu/esma/nfl/2014-nfl-fan-quality-analysis/

The franchises that "awarded" their fan base....by doing well

During the current decade 2010 through 2014 the following 6 teams have the best records:

New England 70-21

Green Bay 62-23-1

Baltimore 59-31

Seattle 57-33

San Francisco 55-32-1

Pittsburgh 53-32

During the previous decade 2000-2009 the following 6 teams had the best records:

New England

Indianapolis

Pittsburgh

Philadelphia

Baltimore

And here are the teams that gave their fans little "Equity"

Worst records from 2010-2014:

Jacksonville 22-58

Cleveland 25-55

Oakland 27-53

Tampa Bay 27-53

Washington 28-52

St. Louis 29-50-1

Worst record in the 2000-2009 decade:

Detroit

Cleveland

Oakland

Arizona

Houston

Buffalo

Now, does anyone on God's green fucking earth really believe that the fans of New England, Seattle, Baltimore and the like are truly "better more loyal fans" than those of Cleveland, Oakland, Buffalo.....give the shit these latter teams have been given in this century?

Fucking HELL NO.

See the above quote...and note how bogus it is in terms of measuring fan loyalty.

"Team performance?" "Won-Loss record" They must believe having a fan based on a pile of FRAKs is a good thing. They clearly believe apparently that only the winningest teams can have the best fans.

"Market population"? So, that must mean that the Los Angeles Nobodies have one of the best fan bases because LA is the second largest market?

"Median income"? So.....the teams that are in the market where people make the most money have the best fans?

Does anyone else recognize how ridiculously absurd these statements....and measurements are?

The real quality of the sports brand is revealed when fans support a team through the tough times. The Packers or Steelers will sell-out the year after they go 6-10, not so much for the Jaguars.

And look at the complete ignorance of the above statement. The Packers and the Steelers have been winning so much...yet this fucking idiot thinks that it is a great virtue because they happen to have an occasional bad season, and yet still support their team.

The measure of fan loyalty is what happens when a team has 10-15 years of bad performance.....not one scattered here or there.

This author is an idiot of epic proportion.

The Soldier said:

Again and again and again, these assholes do NOT measure the passion of a fan base when they rank here.....they are measuring above all the performance of the team. This article is full of ignorance.

Now, if by "Fan Equity" they mean: how well is a truly loyal fan base being rewarded by the success of the team over the years.....then the Browns very well may be at the lower end of things. In terms of on field success the Browns organization has shit all over the loyal fans, no doubt

But somehow I do not think that is what this article is supposedly trying to measure....which makes it fucking stupid.