2014 SEC College Football Fan Equity

For more of our studies, follow us on Twitter @sportsmktprof

For our Overall Top 10 & rankings explanation, please click here

For the Best & Worst of the Power Conferences, please click here

For our Non-Power Conference Top 10, please click here

The discussion of the conferences with highest fan equity begins and ends with the Southeastern Conference (SEC).  Six of the top twelve overall college football teams in our rankings are from the SEC.  For the second straight year, UGA tops our ranking of SEC college football fan equity. [For more on the overall study and methodology, please click here]

2014 SEC College Football Fan Equity

When we examine the SEC Fan Equity rankings from last year, the top 5 teams are the same except for Arkansas replacing Texas A&M.  The teams near the bottom are also relatively unchanged.   For those who are wondering why Georgia is ahead of Alabama, our explanation from last year still applies:

“The University of Georgia has the number one ranked football fan base in the SEC according to our study.  It should be pointed out that this study covers a ten year period, and that the top four ranked schools in the SEC are also among the top ranked football fan bases in the country.  So, what separates Georgia from Alabama?   Over the period of our study, both Georgia and Alabama averaged between 9 and 10 wins a season.  However, Georgia averaged 12% more in revenues per year than Alabama.  Alabama also had a couple of years in the beginning of our sample (2002 & 2004) where the home games were not all filled to capacity.  Thus, over the period of our study, when we control for team performance and other institutional factors, the Georgia fan base is just a bit more loyal and devoted.”

So why did Arkansas move up the rankings?  We believe that this could in part be due to enthusiasm resulting from the hiring of Coach Bielema.  Revenues were up for the Razorbacks last year and attendance remained relatively unchanged, despite winning less than the previous year.

Mike Lewis & Manish Tripathi, Emory University 2014.

2014 College Football Fan Equity Rankings: Texas, Notre Dame, & UGA are on Top

For more of our studies, follow us on Twitter @sportsmktprof

For the Best & Worst of the Power Conferences, please click here

For our Non-Power Conference Top 10, please click here

For our SEC Rankings, please click here.

After a summer of examining fan quality in the NBA, NHL, MLB, NFL, and College Basketball, finally we get to the most important sport in the South, College Football.  The winner this year (and last year) and probably into the distant future in our ranking of college football fan bases is the University of Texas.  It’s not close.   Following Texas, we have a top 5 of Notre Dame, Georgia, Florida, and Auburn.

2014 College Football Fan Equity RankingsOne notable loser from our previous rankings is Penn State.  The Nittany Lions dropped from the top ten to number sixteen.  And what about other power schools like Alabama and LSU?  They finished 11th and 12th, respectively.

Our approach is data and statistically driven, as we look at how fans support their teams after controlling for how well the team performs on the field, the market it plays in, and school characteristics.  For the fan equity analysis, we build a statistical model using publicly available data from the last fourteen years that predicts team revenues as a function of metrics related to team performance such as winning percentage, bowl participation, and other factors such as number of students, stadium capacity, etc.  We then compare actual revenues over the last few years to what is predicted by our model.  Please click here for an explanation of why we use this approach to fan equity measurement.   Click here for more information on the methodologies behind our studies of fan quality in general. 

Mike Lewis & Manish Tripathi, Emory University 2014.

Yahoo Sports: Cowboys, Steelers fans rank as NFL’s ‘best,’ new study finds

Yahoo Sports: Cowboys, Steelers fans rank as NFL’s ‘best,’ new study finds

The Sports Marketing Analytics project at Emory University tracks a variety of statistical measures to track fan loyalty. The project, the product of professors Mike Lewis and Manish Tripathi, has determined that the fan bases of Dallas and Pittsburgh rank at the top of two important statistical categories.

Dallas leads the way in “Fan Equity,” a metric designed to track just how much a fanbase supports its team financially. The ranking is an average of the last three years, but even so, Dallas has led in this category for five years. Rounding out the top five are the fan bases of the Patriots, Jets, Giants, and Colts.

2014 College Basketball Fan Equity Rankings

As we publish our ranking of college basketball fan base support across the “power” conferences (AAC, ACC, Big 12, Big 10, Big East, SEC, & PAC 12), we can already hear the abuse we are about to take on Twitter and through the media.  Our rankings are based on a statistical analysis of self-reported revenue data.  We create a statistical model of revenue as a function of team quality (winning percentage, NCAA tournament qualification, etc…) and market potential (conference affiliation, median income, area population, number of students, etc…) and then compare the model’s prediction to the self-reported revenues.  Yes, we get that this self-reported revenue data can be a bit quirky, but it’s what the schools choose to report.

The key point in the analysis is that we are looking at support after controlling for team quality.  Some of our critics seem to think that selling out a 16,000 seat arena when your team regularly wins 30 plus games and makes deep tournament runs is amazing support.  Reality check: pretty much any major school would be able to sell out under these conditions.

Our overall top 15 schools are listed in the table below.  Louisville repeats last year’s 1st place finish.  The rest of the top five are Duke, Arizona, Texas and Xavier.  Other notables include Kentucky in 7th, North Carolina in 11th and Indiana in 12thWe fully realize that Kentucky fans will once again be incensed by these rankings. 

2014 CBB Fan Equity

Strictly speaking, the fan equity rankings are probably most appropriately done within each conference due to conference revenue sharing, but it seemed like more fun to do a simple list of the top schools.  At the other end of the spectrum, we have the bottom finishers in each conference (based on conference affiliation in 2013-2014).  In the ACC, the data says that the worst fan base is Boston College.  In the Big Ten, Iowa is in the cellar.  The last place fan base in the Big Twelve is Baylor.  Seton Hall just beats out DePaul for last place in the Big East.  Colorado is last in the Pac 12.  In a surprise, given their recent success, it appears that Florida basketball still ranks after football and spring football as sports that the Gator nation cares about.  And finally, at the bottom of the AAC we have the Cincinnati Bearcats.

For more on the concept of fan equity, please click here and here.  For our ranking of the “non-power” conferences, please click here.

Mike Lewis & Manish Tripathi, Emory University 2014.

2014 College Basketball Fan Equity: Introduction and “Non-Power” Rankings

When we evaluate college sports fan bases, we find ourselves in an altered environment from the professional leagues.  There are differences in data availability (both good and bad) and differences in structure of the leagues that must be considered.

In the case of data, for example, we do not have sources for ticket prices, and team payroll is not relevant (as of now).  However, on the plus side, we have self-reported revenue for each sport (and yes, we know that schools employ different accounting rules).

The other major issue is that of league structure.  While Division I college basketball operates as a singular entity for the purposes of championships, revenue sharing for basketball and football occurs at the level of the conferences.  This makes it a bit tricky to compare schools across conferences since a bottom tier school in a power conference starts out with significant revenue, while a non-power conference school has to earn their own keep.  For example, if we don’t adjust for conference membership, Northwestern ranks as a top five fan equity team simply because their Big Ten shared revenues are by themselves a phenomenal haul for a team of Northwestern’s quality.

Because of this conference issue, we prefer to report our fan equity rankings at the conference level rather than a single ranking for all D-1 teams.  Today we begin with the “non-power” conference teams.  For the purposes of college basketball, we are identifying the “power” conferences as: AAC, ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Big East, SEC, & PAC-12.  Our top ten teams are based on the last 3 years (for our statistical analysis we use all data since 2001 but for the rankings we use team results for the last 3 years).  The rankings reflect the conference the team played in during the 2013-2014 season.

The top ten “non-power” conferences rankings are given below.  The number 1 fan base was Dayton.  The Flyers were followed by Gonzaga and UNLV.

2014 Fan Equity Non Power

When we do these rankings we always have to make the point that our estimates of fan base quality are based on fan support AFTER controlling for team quality and market potential.  Therefore a team like Duquesne can still make the list because the fan support is very good despite the team struggling on the court.

At the other end of the scale, the bottom 10 teams in terms of fan equity are given below.  The team with the worst fan support in all of D-1 college basketball is UNC Greensboro.

2014 Worst Fan Equity Non Power

We can also evaluate which teams are trending upward and which are falling fast.  We do this by comparing the fan equity for the first three years of our data with the last 3 years.  This analysis is important because it speaks to which coaches and athletic directors have been the most successful.  At the “non-power” conference level, this list might be a good place for major schools to search for coaches and athletic directors.  Unlike  the traditional approach of just looking at winning or losing, this change metric speaks to the creation of “economic value” while controlling for factors such as team tradition, investment, capacity and other fixed factors for which sports executives should not get credit (or blame).

2014 Risers Non power

The biggest risers in the non-power conferences include Gonzaga, Kent State, Dayton, Northern Iowa and Nevada.

In terms of moving in the wrong direction, Montana & Florida A&M had the biggest drop in fan equity.

For more on the concept of fan equity, please click here and here.  In our next post, we will examine the fan equity rankings for the “power” conferences.

Mike Lewis & Manish Tripathi, Emory 2014.    

MLB Fan Analysis Part 1: Fan & Social Media Equity

Who are the best fan bases in Major League Baseball?  A quick Google search of “best MLB fan bases” produces more than a million results.  Specific rankings are published by entities ranging from news organizations to ticket brokers.  In general, these rankings are based more on subjective opinion than data and analysis.  In contrast, we take a 100% data-driven approach.

That said, we readily acknowledge that fan base analysis is a complex topic.  Our core metric is something we term “fan equity.” This metric is based created using a revenue-premium model of brand equity.  This model is driven by the financial support shown by fans conditional on team performance and market characteristics.  This approach has significant advantages in that it is based on spending behavior and not driven by short variations in winning.  But, the revenue-premium approach is not perfect.  Therefore, this year we will be publishing a number of rankings (and providing descriptions of the strengths and weaknesses of each approach).  Click here for an overview of each method.

Today, we present three analyses of MLB fan bases.  We begin with the fan equity / revenue-premium model (based on the last three years), a trend analysis of fan equity growth over the past 15 seasons, and an analysis of each team’s social media equity.

2014 MLB Fan Equity

The winners in the fan equity analysis include the Red Sox, Yankees, Cubs, Phillies, Cardinals and Twins.  The Red Sox and Yankees placing at the top of the list is simultaneously unsurprising and interesting.  It is unsurprising because these are two of the league’s most prominent teams, and interesting because the two teams are bitter rivals.  The intense competition between these two teams provides an added factor that may be lacking for teams like the Cubs or the Phillies.  And yes, we do know that Cardinals fans love to beat the Cubs. (Click here for more details on our methodology for fan and social equity)

At the bottom of the list, we have teams in cities with great weather (or maybe summers that are too hot) and teams that are generally regarded as number two in their markets.  The bottom five are the White Sox, Angels, A’s, Mets and Rays.  As an aside, how about the “Portland A’s”?

We know the winners and the losers, but fan bases are not static entities.  As teams win, lose or market themselves, their fan equity evolves.  As a second analysis, we examined fan equity trends over the past 15 years.  This analysis revealed that MLB’s high equity teams are tending to even greater levels of fan support.  In this analysis, the Yankees finished first followed by the Red Sox, Cubs, Nats, Phillies, Dodgers and Giants.  This list of teams is overwhelmingly concentrated in the largest markets.  At the bottom of the list, we have teams like the Diamondbacks, Indians, Orioles, Padres and Rays.

2014 MLB Trend

The last analysis for today is something we term social media equity.  This analysis looks at each team’s social media following (again controlling for market size and winning).  Social media equity is important because it is unconstrained by stadium size, unaffected by a team’s pricing decisions and provides a measure of national following. It may also be a forward looking indicator if social media participants are younger than those fans who attend games.

2014 MLB Social Equity

The social media ranking is fairly different.  While the Yankees are number one, the top five also includes the Padres, Brewers, Rangers and Pirates.  Perhaps, the revenue-premium measure is picking up the economics of the big markets while the social media metric is best for identifying current interest.  However, the bottom of the social media list is consistent with the bottom of the fan equity list with teams like the Mets, A’s and Angels.

In our next post, we will present analyses of fan base sensitivity to winning and pricing.

Mike Lewis & Manish Tripathi, Emory University 2014.

Fan Rankings 2014

Evaluating sports brands, or any brands, is a complicated endeavor.  The fundamental issue is that a brand is an intangible asset so the analyst must rely on indirect measures of the brand.  Last year, we introduced a measure of fan loyalty that we termed “fan equity.”  This measure was based on the degree to which fans were willing to support a franchise after controlling for factors such as population and winning percentage.  We also explored a social media based metric that used a similar approach to evaluate a team’s success in building a social media footprint.

This summer, we are updating our analyses across the four major sports leagues (NFL, NBA, MLB, & NHL) and the two major college sports (football & basketball).  We are also including several additional analyses that further illuminate fan support and brand equity.  Shifting to multiple measures of “fan support” provides significant benefits.  First, using multiple measures allows for a form of triangulation, since we expect that a great fan base will excel on most or all of the measures.  The second benefit is that since each measure has some unique elements, the construction of multiple measures allows for a richer description of each fan base.  Next, we provide basic descriptions and critiques of each of the metrics to be published.

Fan Equity

Our baseline concept of fan quality is something we term fan equity.  This is similar in spirit to “brand equity” but is adapted to focus specifically on the intensity of customer preference (rather than to consider market coverage or awareness).  We calculate fan equity using a revenue-premium model.  The basic approach is to develop a statistical model of team revenues based on team performance and market characteristics.  We then compare the forecasted revenues from this model for each team to actual revenues.  When teams actual revenues exceed predicted revenues, we take this as evidence of superior fan support.

The fan equity measure has some significant benefits.  First, since it is calculated using revenues, it is based on actual fan spending decisions.  In general, measures based on actual purchasing are preferred to survey based data.  The other prime benefit is that a statistical model is used to control for factors such as market size, and short variations in team performance.  This allows the measure to reflect true preference levels for a team rather than effects due to a team playing in a large market, or because a team is currently a winner. However, the fan equity measure also has a couple of potential issues.  First, one of the distinguishing features of sports is capacity constraints.  Measures of attendance or revenues may therefore underestimate true consumer demand simply because we do not observe demand above stadium capacity.  The second issue relates to owner pricing decisions.  An implicit assumption in the revenue-premium model is that teams are revenue maximizers.

Social Media Equity

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.  On the negative side, the social media equity does not differentiate between passive and engaged fans.  Following of a team on Facebook or Twitter requires a minimal, one time effort.

Trend Analysis (Fan Equity Growth)

A key issue in evaluating fan or brand equity is the time horizon used in the analysis.  The methods described above produce an estimate of “equity” for each season.  The dilemma is in determining how many years should be used to construct rankings.  The shorter the time horizon used, the more likely the results are to be biased by random fluctuations or one-time events.  On the other hand, using a long time horizon is problematic because fan equity is likely to evolve over time.  This year, we present an analysis of each team’s fan equity trajectory.

Price Elasticity and Win Elasticity

This year we are adding analyses that look at the sensitivity of attendance to winning and price at the team-level.  This is accomplished by estimating a model of attendance (demand) as a function of various factors such as price, population, and winning rates.  The key thing about this model specification is that we include team level dummy variables and interactions between the team dummies and the focal variables of winning and price.

The win elasticity provides a measure of the importance of quality in driving demand.  For example, if the statistical model finds that a team’s demand is unrelated to winning rate, then the implication is that fans have so much of a preference for the team that winning and losing don’t matter.  For a weaker team (brand) the model would produce a strong relationship between demand and winning.

This benefit of this measure is that the results come directly from data.  A possible issue with this analysis is that the results may be driven by omitted variables.  For example, prior to conducting the analysis we might speculate that demand for the Chicago Cubs might only be slightly related to the team’s winning percentage.  This speculation is based on the fact that the Cubs never seem to win but always seem to have a loyal following.  Our finding would, however, need to be evaluated with care since the “Cub” effect is perfectly correlated with a “Wrigleyville Neighborhood” effect.

Social Media Based Personality

This year we are adding another new analysis that uses social media (Twitter) data to evaluate the personality of different fan bases.  The foundation for this analysis is information on “sentiment.”  Sentiment is basically a measure of the tone of the conversation about a team.  To understand fan personality, we examine how Twitter sentiment varies over time.  We do comparisons of how much sentiment varies across teams.  This tells us if some fan bases are even-keeled while other are more volatile.  We can also look at whether some teams tend have higher highs or lower lows.  These analyses are based on the distribution of sentiment scores over a multiple year period.

Twitter based sentiment has both positives and negatives.  On the positive side, Twitter conversations are useful because they represent the unfiltered opinions of fans.  Fans are free to be as happy or as distraught as they want to be.  The availability of sentiment over time is also useful as it allows for the capture of how opinion changes over time.  On the downside, Twitter sentiment scores are only as good as the algorithm used to evaluate each Tweet.  Twitter data may also be a bit biased towards the opinions of younger fans.

Mike Lewis & Manish Tripathi, Emory University 2014.

The Best Sports Cities: Boston Wins in a Rout; Twin Cities Better than NY & Chicago

Boston InfographicWe started the Emory Sports Marketing Analytics blog back in March of last year.  Our goal was to bring analytics to the world of sports business.  To put a finishing touch on 2013, we are going to present our rankings of the best and worst sports fans by city.  These rankings are based on our revenue premium model of fan equity and our analyses of social media equity.

Phoenix InfographicFor our rankings, we have divided cities into categories based on how many of the four major sports (NFL, NBA, MLB, & NHL) have franchises representing the city.  This categorization does introduce a bit of oddness since Los Angeles becomes a “three-sport” city.  Another tough issue is how to treat teams like the Packers.  Is Green Bay a one-sport city or is Milwaukee as three-sport city (we decided that we would treat Milwaukee as a three-sport city)?

Today we reveal our rankings of the four-sport cities, and a summary of the best and worst markets in the other categories (one, two, & three-sports cities).  Before the actual rankings, a couple of clarifying comments are in order.  The key to our rankings is that we are looking at fan support after controlling for short term variations in team quality and market characteristics.  Basically we create statistical models of revenues as a function of quality measures like winning percentage and market potential factors like population.  This allows our results to speak how much support fans provide as if market size and winning rates were equal.

The number one team on our four-sport city list is Boston; and it wasn’t even all that close.  All of the Boston teams have impressive fan followings.  The Red Sox ranked 1st in terms of fan equity and 1st in social equity. The Celtics finished 3rd in the NBA in both our fan and social media equity rankings.  The Patriots rank 2nd in fan equity and 3rd in social media equity in the NFL.  The Bruins rank relatively low in fan equity (perhaps because they could price higher), but very high in social media equity.  Number two on the list is Philadelphia.  The Eagles, Phillies and Flyers are all very strong fan bases.  The Sixers are weak within the NBA, but the three other sports carry Philly to a second place finish.

The city in third place is likely going to generate Twitter complaints about how clueless we are, and how academics should stay away from sports.  We rank the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul as having the third most supportive fans among the four-sport cities.  Minneapolis/Saint Paul show great support of the Twins and solid support for the Vikings.  The Wild also do surprisingly well in the NHL.

How could Minnesota finish in front of New York and Chicago?  It’s because these cities don’t do a great job in terms of supporting all their teams.  For example, The Brooklyn Nets perform poorly when market size is considered and the White Sox have very poor support on all metrics.  We can hardly wait for the semi-literate Twitter attacks to commence.

At the bottom of the list we have Phoenix.  We should note that the Suns perform well and finish 7th in terms of fan equity in the NBA.  But beyond that, Phoenix sports are a disaster.  In terms of fan equity, the Diamondbacks finish 26th in MLB, the Cardinals 30th in the NFL and the Coyotes 28th in the NHL.  As we have learned over the past year, it seems that weather and tradition are what creates a strong fan culture.  Perhaps the Phoenix teams overall are too new, and the weather is too warm.

Our other winners and losers are given below with linked infographics that summarize raw data and final rankings.

For the three-sport cities, the overall winner is St. Louis, and the worst fan support occurs in Tampa Bay.

For the two-sport markets, the leader in fan support is NashvilleOakland is at the bottom of the rankings.

For the one-sport cities, Portland leads the way, while Memphis trails the field.

Mike Lewis & Manish Tripathi, Emory University 2014.

Ranking Sports Cities: Nashville & New Orleans Are the Best “Two-Sport” Towns

There are ten cities on our list with teams in two pro leagues.  These cities include Baltimore, Buffalo, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Nashville, New Orleans, Oakland, Seattle and San Diego.  While our previous analysis of one team towns was driven by a single team’s results, we now shift to cities with multiple franchises.

#1 Nashville

We have to admit, this was a bit of a surprise.  Not because of anything negative about Nashville itself, but because both Nashville teams are relative newcomers.  Our data suggest that Nashville has a population that will support teams even without having generations of history. This is somewhat unusual and suggests that Nashville should be considered as a candidate for future expansion clubs.

When Mike thinks of the Titans his mind goes back to Bum Phillips and Earl Campbell (Manish thinks of the Music City Miracle).  But despite Mike’s aging memory, the numbers suggest that the Titans have been able to develop a strong following in a relatively short time.  The Titans rank 10th in terms of NFL fan equity.  According to ESPN, Tennessee has sold out all tickets for the last several years.  Notably, these sell-outs continue whether the team goes 10-6 or 6-10.

Over the past 3 seasons, the Nashville Predators have sold at least 94% of available tickets.  This is impressive attendance considering the size of the market and ticket prices.  The Nashville market contains only 1.7 million people but Predators are able to charge ticket prices in excess of teams in larger markets.  The Predators rank 11th in our fan equity ranking and 15th in our social media ranking.

#2 New Orleans

New Orleans was one of the markets that enthusiastically embraced some of our earlier studies, so New Orleans finishing number two in our 2-sport city rankings was not a surprise.  Well, maybe it was a little bit of a surprise because we are old enough to remember the “Aints.”

New Orleans provides amazing support to the Saints.  In our fan equity rankings the Saints finished 4th in the NFL.  This placed the Saints ahead of more “prominent” teams like the Giants or the Bears.  The key is that our rankings account for population and variation in winning percent.  The results therefore mean that when you control for these factors, Saints fans are truly exceptional.

The Pelicans also have a solid fan base.  The Pelicans finished 16th in terms of fan equity and 7th in social media equity.

#3 Baltimore

We now turn to the top two-professional team markets.  At #3 we have the tradition rich Baltimore metro area.

The Orioles rank a solid 14th in our fan equity rankings of MLB.  This is impressive since up until the past two seasons, the Orioles struggled to compete in the AL East.  It is also impressive since some of the Orioles support was likely lost to the Nationals.  The Orioles also ranked 14th in our social media equity ranking.  The key to the Orioles success in the rankings?  If we had to guess we would say it is tradition. Frank Robinson, Jim Palmer, Brooks Robinson, Cal Ripken etc… Also students have told Professor Lewis that he looks like Ripken.

The Ravens actually score bit better in our rankings with a 8th place fan equity and a 9th place social equity ranking.  Again, this is no surprise given the success of the Ravens franchise.  It is interesting, however, that each team’s equity seems to come from a different era.  While the Orioles glory days were probably from the late 60s to the early 90s, the Ravens equity has been built on recent success and stars.

#4 Buffalo

Just as we find that teams in warm markets seem to struggle to build followings, teams in colder climates seem to outperform their competition.  So it is no surprise that Buffalo (where Manish will be spending Thanksgiving) is in the top half of two team cities.

For the respective teams, the Bills finish 24th in fan equity and 14th is social media equity.  The Sabers finish 16th in the NHL fan equity rankings.

#5 Indianapolis

The Pacers and the Colts fan bases combine to give Indiana/Indianapolis a rank right in the middle of the list.  Despite their recent success, the Pacers rank near the bottom of the NBA with a fan equity ranking of 23rd.  In contrast, the Colts have a very solid fan equity ranking of 6th.  It will be interesting to see if the Colts can maintain this performance as a quarterback now playing in Denver becomes a memory.

#6 Seattle

Seattle ranks 6th on the list.  The Seahawks rank 23rd in the NFL in both fan equity and social media equity. The Mariners do a bit better with a fan equity ranking of 20th in MLB and a social media rank of 12th.

#7 Cincinnati

At number seven on our list of cities with two professional teams we have the home of the Bengals and Reds.  Even prior to running the numbers, this is about what we would have expected.  Our expectations were that the Reds had a strong fan base while the Bengals were fairly weak.  In terms of population Cincinnati is the 28th largest market in the US and the median income rank is #55.

The Bengals’ fan base is relatively weak.  The team usually ranks below average in terms of attendance and finished dead last in 2011.  The Bengals also do not have a great deal of pricing power as the average price of a Bengals’ ticket is well below the league average ($68.96 versus $81.54 league average in 2013).  The end result of this data is that the Bengals ranked 19th in our fan equity rankings.  The team scored even worse in social media with a ranking of 26.

The Reds do indeed have a stronger fan base.  In terms of fan equity the Reds ranked 11th in MLB and the social media rank was a strong 13th.  The Reds also price well below the MLB average ($21.35 versus $27.48 league average) but the team ranks right in the middle of the pack with attendance of more than 2.2 million in each of the last three years.

#8 San Diego

San Diego ranks 8th on our list of “2 sport” cities.  As we have noted, it seems that the better the weather, the more “fair-weather” the fans.  In terms of demographics, San Diego is a respectable market with a population of about 3.2 million (17th largest market) and the 27th highest median income.  But, fan support is questionable.  Strangely, especially for California, the NFL Chargers perform a bit better on our fan indexes than the Padres.

Last year the Chargers ranked 28th in attendance and only sold 84% of capacity.  In our fan equity rankings, the Chargers were ranked 11th.  The social media rank was 15th.  These are respectable numbers.  The reason that the Chargers are fairly highly ranked is that while attendance is low the team is able to charge relatively high prices.  This season, the Chargers average ticket price is actually higher than NFL stalwarts such as Green Bay and Pittsburgh.

The Padres ranked 20th in attendance this past season and 21st in 2012.  The Padres showing is particularly bad because the team’s average ticket price is the lowest in the league.  In terms of fan equity, the Padres ranked 19th in MLB.  The team’s social media rank was also 19th.

#9 Kansas City

Kansas City is our 9th ranked “Two Sport” town.  While Kansas City has been a poster child for the issue of the competitive balance between big and small markets, our analyses suggest that even after controlling for population and income differences that Kansas City is a relatively poor sports market.

This past season the Royals ranked 26th in terms of attendance and only sold 57% of capacity despite being in the hunt for a playoff spot.  And given that Royals prices are well below the league average, it is hard to make the case that price is the factor that is limiting support.  In terms of fan equity the Royals ranked 15th in MLB.

Chiefs are more of a middle of the road team in terms of attendance.  The Chiefs ranked 8th in terms of attendance in 2011 and 16th in 2012.  However, while the Chiefs raw attendance is higher many of their competitor’s attendance figures are limited by capacity constraints.  In 2012, KC attendance was just 89% of capacity.  And like the Royals, the Chiefs also price well below the league average.  In terms of fan equity, the Chiefs ranked 21st in the NFL.

#10 Oakland

At the bottom of the list we have the city of Oakland.  Oakland has two storied franchises in the A’s and the Raiders.  But despite the previous success of these teams they both rank near the bottom of their respective leagues.  The A’s finish 26th in terms of fan equity and 28th in social media equity in our MLB results.  The Raiders finish dead last in fan equity in the NFL.

Interestingly, the Raiders finish 10th in the social media ranking of NFL teams.  This is an important finding because it suggests that the Raiders may enjoy an above average following nationally while they struggle locally.  This means that the Raiders are likely to benefit from relocating.  Of course, this has been tried in the past, but perhaps the key is to move to a place where the team doesn’t compete with the weather.  How about the Portland Raiders?

To some degree Oakland’s finish at the bottom is not surprising.  While both teams have tremendous histories of success, this success mainly occurred in the 70s and 80s.  The Oakland teams may be suffering from fans being disappointed that the teams have fallen a long ways.  This type of “reference” effect is critical because the primary segment of affluent fans is likely to be in their 40s and 50s.

We have also noted in previous posts that there does seem to be a systematic weakness that happens in markets located in California, Florida and other “good” weather cities.  For whatever reason fans in these regions tend not to show the support that fans in colder climates tend to exhibit.

Mike Lewis & Manish Tripathi, Emory University 2013.