Fan Attendance

by 94neverout on Jul 26, 2007 9:29 AM EDT Comment 59 comments

Forgive me if this topic has been belabored. I just don't understand. I live an hour outside of Philly. The Phillies stink. They are run poorly, even with Pat Gillick at the helm. And yet, they draw huge crowds night in and night out. They are averaging over 38,000 each night.

The Indians are an exciting team with a great deal of promise. They can barely manage 25,000 fans at the games.

Are the old attendance records just a product of the Browns disappearance? Is this a once bitten twice shy situation from when they couldn't win 1 out of their last 6 games to make the playoffs? Is this just the market size?

Should I just figuratively keep my mouth shut and enjoy?

0 recs | Comment 59 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Re: Fan Attendance

Well, the mid-90's was the perfect storm.

No Browns
Rejuvenation of downtown Cleveland (Flats/W6)
Booming economy in the Cleveland area
New stadium built for the Indians
One of the greatest Indians teams of all time (mostly from home grown talent)

Looking at those factors, it would be impossible for it not to succeed.

Now, that 90's team has been dismantled (in a manner which upset the fans). Downtown Cleveland (specifically the Flats area) is dead economically. Most importantly, the Browns are back. Even as bad as that team is .. they still are the number one interest in the city.

by Toxicadam on Jul 26, 2007 10:14 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Fan Attendance

Fair Weather Fan Report

by homelytourist on Jul 26, 2007 10:28 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Fan Attendance

My wife and I will be there tonight, we're driving up from Columbus. This will be my fourth game of the year (fifth if you count sitting through the snow on opening day). I'd go to more if we lived closer to Cleveland. But, yeah, it is disappointing to see so many empty seats for an exciting, playoff-contending team. And ownership is finally "spending money" to keep some of our players so the fans should be happy. Fan interest and attendance will never be like the 90s again, but it should be better than this.

by Buckeye Brad on Jul 26, 2007 10:31 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Fan Attendance

94, please look through the archives, this is a tired old subject, well past its expiration date.

by talonk on Jul 26, 2007 10:33 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Fan Attendance

Ehhh...ok. In brief: (1) Historically bad weather in April and May, (2) pretty crummy scheduling in general, (3) a miserable late-season collapse in '05 and a massively disappointing '06 out of the gate, (4) the Cavs reaching the finals ... and (5) an apocalyptic collapse of Cleveland's economy which only one man can foresee which will result in the sale and subsequent move of the franchise. Take your pick.

by fleerdon on Jul 26, 2007 10:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Fan Attendance

I mentioned having a conversation with a ticket guy about this. Obviously, 40,000 seat nights involve a handful of fairweather, decided-at-the-last-minute fans who say, "Hey, this should be a good game, we haven't done this in a while, and we have a lot of disposable income to throw around. Let's go get good seats!" Then they arrive at a ticketing office two days before a Boston Red Sox game, or the weekend Yankees series. When told they can't get anything other than upper deck, they say, "Nevermind then, let's go to a movie" and walk away. They want to go to a game, but not bad enough to sit in "lousy" seats. The fact that the Indians are averaging about 20,000 to most of the good games means they'll have to settle for just that.

The person I spoke to about this said that's easily 2/5 of ticket buyers. That could be another underrated cause of low attendance. Take his word for it, I guess.

Oh, and while we're at it, he gave me a word of advice. If you want great seats at the last minute, the best time to do it is when ticket sellers open the morning of the game. They'll have some season tickets that the holders gave up, but they go fast.

by nickjs21 on Jul 26, 2007 10:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Fan Attendance

i can think of few better ways to spend an evening with some friends than paying $7 each to sit in the outfield upper deck for three hours goofing off. that's ridiculously cheap entertainment. but maybe that's just me.

and if you think those seats are "bad," ask the people who regularly pay $150 bucks to sit behind a pole at Fenway. (to watch a team that is not demonstrably better than the Tribe, i might add.)

by nctribefan on Jul 26, 2007 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Fan Attendance

I find being guilt-tripped about my attendance makes me want to attend games less often, personally.

Disclaimer: this post doesn't mean what you think it means.

by AngG on Jul 26, 2007 10:36 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Fan Attendance

There are of course many reasons for this. I do think economics is a significant one, but way too big of a subject to try to tackle here.

The main, though, is simply market size. There are over six million people in the Delaware Valley area. It is, by far, the most populous part of the country that one baseball team gets to have all to itself.

So if you're going to start comparing, Philly isn't a fair place to start. Philly has totally unfair advantages in this area.

by Jay on Jul 26, 2007 10:41 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Fan Attendance

I think there's more to it than the 90s being the perfect storm.

The 2006 Indians were supposed to tear up the league, and then they didn't. And it soured the average fan on the team.

And then the front office didn't bring in any big names that the average fan would recognize over this offseason. I think the average fan this year waited to see how the Indians would do because last year's team underperformed so badly, and there was a perception that the front office didn't do enough. Then throw in the MLB's inexplicable front loading of the team's home games into the months where the weather in Cleveland is the crappiest, and the ensuing sucky weather.

Because the average fan was reserving judgment on this team, there was plenty of time for Red Sox fans to get tickets to the games, especially since the Red Sox only come into town once. Serious Red Sox fans within a 4 or 5 hour drive of Cleveland will come to see them play here, and this year, they only have one series in which to do so. Of course there are going to be a lot of Red Sox fans in the stands.

Does it suck? Yes. Is there much that we can do about it? Not really? Is there something the Indians players can do about it? Yes, beat the Red Sox like a rented mule - that will shut their fans up in a hurry.

Pronk Needs You

by woodsmeister on Jul 26, 2007 10:51 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Fan Attendance

Hey, I'm not trying to guilt-trip anyone. I have a very limited and skewed view (Jay is correct). What I do see is a great deal of fan support here and in other ballparks, as well as other places. And I mean Indian fan support.

I see nearly as many Indians hats in my travels as I do Yankees and Red Sox hats. I've begun asking people if they were fans or just liked the hat. All of them were fans.

I just find it odd. I don't mean to jump on a fan-bashing bandwagon. This is just very incongruous to me. I'll keep my mouth shut on the subject and enjoy. Let the people who are missing out, miss out.

by 94neverout on Jul 26, 2007 10:53 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Fan Attendance

At all three Indians away games that I've attended this year (twice in Baltimore, once in DC), there were actually a healthy contingent of Tribe faithful. I don't think we have the Red Sox or Yankees type of following at away games, but we do have a lot of support out there.

Also!, it's easy for me to be flabbergasted about the attendance numbers in Cleveland. I live in Baltimore. It's easy for me to say, "I would have season tickets and never miss a game if I lived in the Land of Cleve." But I also recognize that tickets aren't cheap and I'd like to put my kids through college one day.

My point is that it's impossible to get out to every game, unless you've been beating a drum at every game for over a decade. So I can appreciate Angie's point above about pissing off people by calling them out for not going to the games. Do I think people are missing out? Maybe, maybe not. I just hope that enough tickets are getting sold to allow us to compete for the World Series every year.

-Erik

by drerikbrady on Jul 26, 2007 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Fan Attendance

I have an inkling that John Adams has been at that longer than ten years, Doc, but I can't substantiate that. Note: under the disambiguation for "John Adams" in Wikipedia, there is an as-yet-unwritten article linked to by "Perennial drum-beating attendee of Cleveland Indians home games." So there's that opportunity, if anybody's up for it.

by fleerdon on Jul 26, 2007 12:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Fan Attendance

Just a little bit. I believe John Adams has missed only one game since 1973 and that was for like his daughter's wedding or somesuch.

by NatiTribeFan on Jul 26, 2007 12:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Fan Attendance

I'm just trying to imagine the scene at the first game that he brought the drum. There were probably like 4,000 people there.

SECURITY GUARD: What's that?

JOHN ADAMS: Er...it's a drum.

SECURITY GUARD: What are you going to do with it?

JOHN ADAMS: I think I'm going to beat it during rallies and important at-bats.

SECURITY GUARD: Won't that disturb all the...never mind. Enjoy the game.

by fleerdon on Jul 26, 2007 1:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Fan Attendance

I spoke with him briefly last year, and I think that's the jist of what he said.

by nickjs21 on Jul 26, 2007 2:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Fan Attendance

For the record, about the guilt-tripping thing, I didn't mean you specifically. I just meant the overwhelming feeling of the discussion in general in Cleveland sportsmedia and blogs and such.

Disclaimer: this post doesn't mean what you think it means.

by AngG on Jul 26, 2007 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Fan Attendance

Jay actually said a long time ago in a thread about the Wahoo logo that it was one of the 2 or 3 most popular pieces of merchandising that mlb sells. I assume that's still true.

However, I don't think anyone you randomly ask in a hat is going to say "Naw, just like the hat." Their saying they are fans certainly doesn't preclude them from being the kind of fans described above: attempting to walk up, not getting good seats, and going to the movies.

by afh4 on Jul 26, 2007 11:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Fan Attendance

I always walk up at Camden Yards. As you're well aware, good seats are always available!

-Erik

by drerikbrady on Jul 26, 2007 11:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Fan Attendance

I didn't mean to sound rude before, 94. My apologies.

by talonk on Jul 26, 2007 11:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Fan Attendance

That's why the Tribe would be smart to ditch Buffalo and go to Columbus for AAA in 2009. Brand, spankin' new stadium downtown in the rejuvenated Arena District and no other real strong summer competition (The Crew? Not so much.)

And it would help cement those Ohio ties (Columbus to Cleveland) and would draw a lot more interest for fans to travel northwards to the Jake to see players they once saw at AAA. Suprisingly (to me), Columbus is closer to Cleveland than Buffalo as well.

Let the Blue Jays have Buffalo (if they want it), and the Nats can move closer to the DC area.

Turf Toe -- Sports skewered weakly (and weekly.)

by emd2k3 on Jul 26, 2007 11:23 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Fan Attendance

As a hockey fan, I gotta point out that this is most likely also a drag to Cleveland's hockey teams. For the last Barons incarnation, we were an affiliate of the San Jose Sharks. Who are on the west coast. And several time zones away. Not the best partnership, but that's who the Gunds owned, so it made business sense. [sidebar: of course, the management in Cleveland had a lot to do with the demise of the franchise, but there was no connection to the NHL team that was 2500 miles away]

Enter the Lake Erie Monsters. New AHL team (relocated from Utah), new owner (Dan Gilbert). Our new NHL affiliate? The Colorado Avalanche. No knock on Denver's team or anything, but at 1300 miles away, that NHL connection might not be there again. Granted, I imagine the Avs will have a better farm system than the Sharks, and I have not seen anything to indicate Gilbert will duplicate another crappy effort (although, ticket prices just about doubled for my usual seat- not pleased). But, wouldn't it make more sense if we were affiliated with the Blue Jackets (currently with Syracuse), the Penguins (Wilkes-Barre/Scranton), or the Sabres (Rochester)?

The Lumberjacks (arguably had the glory days of Cleveland hockey, for minor league teams at least) were affiliated sparingly with Minnesota and Tampa Bay, but their primary was Pittsburgh for many years (1992-98).

"We've talked about it so many times," Wedge said, "but this is a special group."

by CarnegieAndOntario on Jul 26, 2007 11:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Fan Attendance

Lumberjacks (arguably had the glory days of Cleveland hockey, for minor league teams at least)

Man you young guys kill me. Back in the day, when the AHL Barons played at the old Cleveland Arena on 34th and Euclid, they were the winter sports draw in Cleveland. Johnny Bower was their goalie, joe Gordon played defense and Cal Sterns was one of the top scorers in the league. Back then the Barons actually paid their players more than many of the NHL clubs. That was the glory days of Cleveland hockey.

And oy yeah, about Columbus baseball fans - I had the unfortunate experience of going to OSU during the early 70's - back in the Big Red Machine days. It was almost impossible to find an Indians fan then - twenty years later I'm living in Upper Arlington and there were no Reds fans to be found - only Tribe followers.

Sometimes you just gotta be lucky

by mauichuck on Jul 26, 2007 5:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Fan Attendance

What I wouldn't give to see ol' Johnny Bower in net... that'd have been something. But you caught me, the Jacks are the draw in my 20 year hockey following career. I should give it up to the older AHL Barons, with the 9 Calder Cups and all. Shame I was not created yet.

"We've talked about it so many times," Wedge said, "but this is a special group."

by CarnegieAndOntario on Jul 26, 2007 6:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Fan Attendance

Columbus is an interesting town as far as MLB loyalties go. There are a lot of people here from NE Ohio (like me) who are diehard Tribe fans. However, until the mid-90s, Columbus was overwhelmingly a Reds town. The big AM station in town broadcast Reds games. Cinci is closer to Columbus than Cleveland.

Now, because of the Indians success in the mid-90s, Columbus natives who formed their allegiances while the Indians were good (let's say those now under 25 - 30) are pretty much Indians fans, while those over 25 - 30 who formed their allegiances when the Indians were terrible are overwhelmingly still Reds fans. Those same Reds fans are still pissed off that Fox Sports Ohio showed Indians games on the cable here and that they had to go to a secondary channel to get the Reds, because they still believe that this is a Reds town.

It would be a significant happening here if the Indians were to move their AAA team here. There are enough Indians fans here to fill the new stadium on a regular basis, even aside from the newness and hipness factors that come with a new downtown stadium. I would go to a lot of games. One of the reasons that I haven't gone to a lot of Clippers games over the years is their affiliation with the Yankees, and a lot of Cleveland fans feel the same way.

Pronk Needs You

by woodsmeister on Jul 26, 2007 11:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Fan Attendance

I have heard that someone, whether it was folks from the city or from the Clippers, I do not know, have approached the Indians FO about this. They are moving forward with building the new stadium for the team (Clippers). It would make the best case for moving the AAA team, but I think the roots in Buffalo are pretty strong.

by JK in CBus on Jul 26, 2007 11:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Fan Attendance

Yeah, I seem to recall hearing that Bisons games are very well attended. And not to get argumentative over nothing, but do minor league teams' affiliations really have that much to do with the ML team you cheer for? I mean, take the Mud Hens. They're a very successful AAA franchise, and it's great for the town and for the Tigers that they play in Toledo. But I think that the number of Tigers fans in Toledo has a lot more to do with the proximity and economic ties to Detroit than it does with the Mud Hens playing here; i.e., if the Mud Hens became a Reds affiliate, I don't know that there would be a substantially greater number of Reds fans here in 5 years.

by fleerdon on Jul 26, 2007 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Fan Attendance

Columbus I would guess is a unique situation because the affiliation was with the Yankees. I have a few friends around town who are Yankees fans because the AAA franchise was here, or at least that's what they claim. I've gone to a couple sports pub a few times to watch a Tribe v. Yankees game and there are usually a few Yankees fans around.

I think it would have some pull, but if the Tribe does really well, I'd bet that will bring out the Indians fans far more.

What really is at play here is that Columbus seems to be at the peak of appeal to the Tribe, with their term ending next year with the Nationals & with the city building a new stadium. And I have heard they are pitching a deal to the Tribe.

by JK in CBus on Jul 26, 2007 1:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Fan Attendance

no, Yankees fans are Yankees fans because they're jerks. those people are just using the Clippers as a convenient excuse.

by nctribefan on Jul 26, 2007 2:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Fan Attendance

Your thinking more along the lines of thought I have. Notice I threw in the 'at least that's what they claim'

by JK in CBus on Jul 26, 2007 3:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Fan Attendance

Dude, what about the Destroyers?

by nickjs21 on Jul 26, 2007 11:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Fan Attendance

ArenaBowl XXI, baby!

"We've talked about it so many times," Wedge said, "but this is a special group."

by CarnegieAndOntario on Jul 26, 2007 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Fan Attendance

Go SaberCats!!! (am in San Jose)

by talonk on Jul 26, 2007 11:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Fan Attendance

I'll also just add that whoever does promos at the Tribe does an awesome job. I've not been to any this year (only one game at the Jake this year-Yankees in a few weeks) but hearing them described cracks me up. Funny bobbleheads, the snow makeup day, the summer camp kids, etc.

by afh4 on Jul 26, 2007 11:33 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Fan Attendance

It is a shame the attendance isn't better, but even at $10 a ticket for the upper deck, it'll all add pretty quick so I guess it's understandable.

I personally would love go to more often but obviously it's not that simple! I won't even get in my annual game this year because I'm not visiting the US

by Luis (Tribe Fan in London) on Jul 26, 2007 11:40 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Fan Attendance

actually, now that I think about the economics, was the out-of-town contingent of fans during the 90s enough that gas prices essentially doubling since then would have a significant affect on attendance?

Disclaimer: this post doesn't mean what you think it means.

by AngG on Jul 26, 2007 11:56 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Fan Attendance

It hasn't impaired travel that much, though it might have the effect of inhibiting sprawl in the long run.

But I ain't goin' down this road again.

by homelytourist on Jul 26, 2007 12:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Fan Attendance

I have two broad points. One's on economics. One's on winning.

1) I don't think economics has much to do with the attendance. Relatively speaking, it's probably just as affordable--if not more--to attend a game at the Jake in 2007 than it was in 1997.

For starters in 1997 every game was sold out, which meant that getting tickets to a game was pretty hard unless you planned in advance. That also meant that scalping outside was much more lucrative. It also meant that you couldn't be selective about where you sat if you wanted to go to a game.

With each game being sold out, parking prices had to be much higher (relative to now), just as how parking is much more expensive when the Yankees are in town than when the Royals are in town. Parking is no longer at a premium; it's much easier and more attractive to haul a family of four with two kids under the age of 10 when you don't have to walk three quarters of a mile to the stadium. Now a family can afford to park much closer to the Jake. This is a minor point, but it's worth mentioning as parking contributes to the cost and convenience of attending a game for most people.

While the ticket prices for the lower seats have risen considerably, it's still possible to get cheap tickets to a game. A lot of people live within driving distance of Jacobs Field. The economy sucks, but is it really so bad that there are not 10,000 fans within driving distance that can afford to pay $10 a ticket? Somehow in 1997 there were a heck of a lot more than 10,000 people who not only could afford to pay that price but were eager to do so.

Why? Because the Indians were winning.

This is the point I was trying to make in the blog post of mine that has been linked to in this thread. Cleveland has a whole bunch of fair weather fans (as do most places). When the team was winning people showed up. Going to an Indians game was the hip thing to do. People wanted to be part of that crowd.

If the team makes it to the playoffs this season the Jake will suddenly sell out, probably at ticket prices higher than regular season games (right? if anything scalping prices will jump).

What I think we are seeing in the current attendance numbers is a reflection of the general interest in baseball in Cleveland in 2007. It's not like the vast majority of fans would go to the Jake only they don't because they can't afford it.

Maybe someone can look at the numbers and figure out a way of measuring the cost. I don't know the ticket prices from 1997. I do not know how the economy was doing in 1997 compared to now.

I do know that you can buy tickets for $7 to every single game and I do know that the economy in Cleveland has never been tremendous. As far as I know there wasn't some localized sudden collapse in 2002 that affected only the Cleveland economy, the fact of which drove down attendance.

The Indians started sucking and people stopped showing up. If the Indians make the playoffs attendance will shoot up again. When you are dealing with a market as small as Cleveland the biggest factor to whether the Indians have high attendance numbers is a combination of winning and how winning contributes to the appeal of going to a game. There just isn't a big enough fan base that has the interest of going to see a .500 team play baseball. In New York that's possible. In Philly that's possible. In Cleveland that's not possible. The team starts winning and the fans will come back. Just look at the Cavs.

The culprit is not economics.

by osoc13 on Jul 26, 2007 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Fan Attendance

Oh, there is suppose to be a 2) at the start of the bit about winning. I'm conversationally anal retentive but also scatter brained. I start out numbering my thoughts and then forget to do so.

by osoc13 on Jul 26, 2007 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Fan Attendance

I do not know how the economy was doing in 1997 compared to now.

As far as I know there wasn't some localized sudden collapse in 2002 that affected only the Cleveland economy, the fact of which drove down attendance.

Have you been living out of the country?

When we talk about economic reasons, we're not talking about ticket prices. We're talking about unemployment, income, the volume of local business, the burst of the dot-com bubble, overseas outsourcing -- which, actually, yes, happened largely in 2002. Well, if you believe the peak and the bubble bursting are the same, that's early 2000, but most of the wealth bled out of the economy over 2001 and 2002. You may recall there was this "9/11" thing somewhere in there which, which dampened the outlook for all investors and basically gutted all travel-related business for the better part of two years.

The Browns' absence, the Indians' greatness, the division's awfulness, and Jacobs Field's newness did come basically at the exact same moment as that boom. The "pretend Internet money" not only paid for many luxury suites and season tickets, it also indirectly carried a huge part of the economy on its back. Probably created millions of jobs in kitchen renovations alone.

In any event, while the boom may not have hit Cleveland in a disproportionately big way, the bust certainly did. I'll leave it to others to spell it out, but it's been bad on a lot of folks. And folks were losing their financial security, or even disposable income, or even actual wealth, at the same time the Indians were losing Manny, Thome, Colon and Vizquel. And the Browns came back. And LeBron arrived.

by Jay on Jul 26, 2007 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Fan Attendance

9/11 referenced the day uid:911 signs up and makes his first post........

by Brick. on Jul 26, 2007 3:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Fan Attendance

simply put: it's a matter of folks having disposable income. in the mid-to-late 90's, there was enough cash to go around where you could go to the Jake, buy 4 tickets, concessions, and park for $15 and it was ok, because so was your bank account.

Today, people can't afford to drop $50 (and that's a very conservative estimate) for Tuesday night entertainment. It's not a matter of ticket/parking prices being lower now, assuming they are across the board. It's that folks have electric and gas bills to pay, $3/gallon for their car, and their home's been on the market for a year and they still can't get anyone to bite. If i had the time, I'd grab a picture of a cat and say "SPAIR SUM CHANGE? TIMEZ R BADD!"

by rolub on Jul 26, 2007 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Fan Attendance

The economy doesn't explain the difference in attendance between Detroit and Cleveland; it's recent success on the field

by palcal on Jul 26, 2007 11:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Fan Attendance

Also ... Detroit is basking in the glow of a radical worst-to-first phenomenon, which is exactly what we enjoyed in Cleveland circa 1996. We'll see if they can sell out six straight years of games with their momentum, as we did.

Also ... ! ... greater Detroit is almost twice the population of greater Cleveland.

by Jay on Jul 26, 2007 11:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Fan Attendance

As of last night, the Indians have moved up to 23rd in the attendance standings, edging past Baltimore at 25,268, compared to 25,211.

The Indians full-year estimate of 2.2 million in attendance would have ranked it 20th last year, maybe not quite so high this year with another record attendance year around MLB.

Most of the top 10 teams are from big markets, but Detroit shows that a WS appearance followed by a first place performance can boost attendance in an economically depressed city (#10 at 36,685).

In 2003, the Tigers lost 119 and averaged 17,103 at Comerica. The same year, the Indians bottomed out at Jacobs (21,358). In four years, the Tigers have more than doubled their attendance. The fact that the Tigers went to the WS last year is the main reason driving the difference in attendance, not the economy.

Most of the teams between #12 and #22 are in mid-markets and are feasible to surpass next year with a WS appearance this year. They could even surpass Detroit at #10 with superb marketing.

by palcal on Jul 26, 2007 12:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Fan Attendance

Back when ESPN did that tour of every MLB stadium, I remember Jacobs Field getting chided for the third row of loges. Of course, at the time the park was built, they probably sold out and seemed like a brilliant idea. But judging by the looks of things on TV, the team would probably be better served to have the upper deck 20 feet closer to the field. I doubt this is a major consideration, but I do sometimes have the sense that the park was built for the best of times.

I'm just reflecting, actually, on the Milwaukee series and how much fun so many people seemed to be having because they got such good seats at such an awesome price. I recognize that this isn't a feasible way to run a stadium long term. I'm just wondering if the whole place isn't charging a little too much given the fanbase.

by fleerdon on Jul 26, 2007 12:51 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Fan Attendance

To anyone who complains about the upper deck at the Jake, spend a game sitting in the 500 level at the Rogers Centre. Every ball looks like a homer.

by supermarioelia on Jul 26, 2007 12:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Fan Attendance

That's fair. If I have a point, which is itself debatable, it's that it'd be nice for us poor folk not to have to watch EVERY game between our knees.

by fleerdon on Jul 26, 2007 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Fan Attendance

How much does it cost to sit in the upper deck at the Jake? Tickets in the 500 level in Toronto are $9, and only $2 on Tuesdays during their "Toonie Tuesday" promotion. Our currencies are roughly equal these days too. I wonder how the two parks compare.

by supermarioelia on Jul 26, 2007 1:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Fan Attendance

"Toonie Tuesday"... haha, brilliant. I love Canada.

"We've talked about it so many times," Wedge said, "but this is a special group."

by CarnegieAndOntario on Jul 26, 2007 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Fan Attendance

I hate to be a snob .. but I live an hour away from the park and if I can't get seats in the lower bowl .. I don't even want to come.

Unless it is a special promotion (fireworks, dollar hot dogs) ... I would much rather be at home listening to it on the radio.

by Toxicadam on Jul 26, 2007 1:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Fan Attendance

That's exactly what I was talking about earlier. And for most games, you can't get seats in the lower bowl. Unless you sit in Lower Reserved, which is actually quite nice ($22, you can peer over the Indians bullpen, there's food and a bar right there, bathrooms are 10 seconds away, and you're the first section inside the gate).

View Box (the first five rows of the upper deck stretch from first base to third base) cost $26.
Upper Box, all the seats behind View Box, cost $18.
Upper Reserved, which stretch to the foul poles, are $10.
And Upper Outfield Reserved, the upper deck section in the outfield going all the way to the flagpole, is $7.

The first 5 rows of Upper Reserved are Upper Box priced, and the first 5 rows of UOR are Upper Reserved priced.

I go to maybe 15-20 games a year, which I think is a pretty good amount. But I'm the snob who sits in Field Box or the suites, and Lower Reserved if I can't get the first two. I'll tell you though, I've sat in a lot of Upper Box seats, and I don't know why people complain. Maybe I'm just one of those people who enjoys where I sit no matter where I am.

by nickjs21 on Jul 26, 2007 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Fan Attendance

Well, the reason that would frustrate me is that I like to sit close enough to gauge things. Like, "Wow, I can't blame him for swinging at that one," or "TERRIBLE CALL! HE WAS SAFE!" I mean, the atmosphere is great, but it's difficult when you want to get INTO the game.

That's just me, though. This may be snobbishness of a different sort, but I doubt that most of the people who blow off the upper deck do so because it hampers their appreciation for the subtleties of the game.

by fleerdon on Jul 26, 2007 1:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Fan Attendance

Plenty of sophisticated fans feel that you basically can't follow the plays from the field boxes. Upper deck, lower row, near home plate. Those are the best seats to actually watch the game. The closer seats are strictly for the thrill of being super-close to the action -- not for "appreciating subtleties."

by Jay on Jul 26, 2007 1:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Fan Attendance

I agree. Sitting in those View Box seats behind home plate doesn't hamper anything, though. It's right above where Hamilton calls the game.

by nickjs21 on Jul 26, 2007 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Fan Attendance

a few thoughts:

bravo on the longest conversation about pro sports and columbus i've ever witnessed without the buckeyes coming up at some point.

i think continued winning fills the seats. like the detroit example above - for years you could roll down to us cellular day of game in chicago, needless to say a large market, and sit where ever you wanted. they win a world series and suddenly i can only get really bad upper deck seats to tribe games there.

if we do well this year there will be a carryover to next, if we do it agian, more carryover...

i also think there's always an element of 'i don't mind spending the cash, but i want to see a win'...

by Brick. on Jul 26, 2007 1:31 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Fan Attendance

O-H!

Anybody? Come on.

by nickjs21 on Jul 26, 2007 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Fan Attendance

I-O!

by osoc13 on Jul 26, 2007 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Fan Attendance

On an overall attendance basis, I think the team needs to make the playoffs and get the businesses back into buying season tickets. Right now it doesn't seem like the Tribe has the solid base of tickets sold like it has in the past. There have been some huge walk-up crowds this year, which is a good sign, but that's not going to happen every night.

From a personal standpoint, I think the upper reserve (? 10 dollar ones) are a pretty sweet deal, provided you don't get too far down the lines. Beer is actually a pretty good value as well. 24 oz cans for 7 bucks from the vendors. The bleachers are nice to, but a huge hassle in terms of concessions. And if you have a seat on the aisle, you'll be sitting on the stairs.

by rog on Jul 27, 2007 7:39 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs