Quote:
Originally Posted by tejdog1
Shouldn't the consistent winning keep fans very loyal?
|
I can't give you any insights into the ways that OOTP measures market size and fan loyalty, but history definitely shows that teams that win consistently don't necessarily draw bigger and bigger crowds.
- The Braves made it to the playoffs every year from 1991 to 2005 (except for the 1994 strike year - and they probably would have made it to playoffs that year as well). Yet their highest attendance was in 1993 - and that was even after they moved into a new stadium in 1997;
- The Yankees went to the postseason every year but one from 1995 to 2012, but their highest per-game attendance figure came in 2008 - the one year that they didn't reach the playoffs;
- Likewise, the Yanks went to the World Series 14 times in 16 years from 1949 to 1964, but their per-game attendance in 1964 was almost half of what it was in 1949;
- The Oakland A's won three consecutive World Series from 1972 to 1974 and their attendance was worse at the end than it was in beginning (that seems to be an A's curse - the same thing happened in 1910-14 and 1929-31);
- The Orioles made it to the playoffs five times in six years from 1969 to 1974, but they drew about 1,300 fewer fans per game in 1974 than they did in 1969.
Now, it's true that there were many factors that can explain these results (e.g. the Yankees drew a lot of fans in 2008 because that was the last year for the old Yankee Stadium), and there are lots of counter-examples, but then that just proves that there are a bunch of things that go into determining attendance besides a team's won-loss record. OOTP models those factors imperfectly, it must be admitted, but it's not unrealistic to see attendance remain stagnant or even drop for a team that wins consistently.