12's ranked #23

[Largent80]

An 11 year study was done and we come in at #23?

http://mynorthwest.com/275/2337500/12th ... -fan-study

 

[12thMan1]

Don't believe everything you read.

 

[Missing_Clink]

I would love to see anyone attend the Week 2 game this season and then try and argue with a straight face that Seattle has anything less than utterly amazing fans.

 

[kidhawk]

I don't really think that's far off at all. There is a core of seahawks fans who are as rabid as any out there, but when you start to look at fan bases as a whole, the seahawks fandom, although growing is still fickle. I know after watching this team since it's inception in an area that is heavily seahawks, but still with a lot of other team's fans as well, seahawks fans can be very fickle and tend to wither up and blow away when the team isn't as successful as they are now.

If the measure of this was just the core who come to the games each Sunday, Seahawk fans would be at or very near the top, but when you factor in the fan base as a whole, there are a lot of room for growth.

 

[Largent80]

Obviously they did not ask the opposing players and coaches any questions. Probably because they couldn't hear.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Not even worth reading

 

[CrimsonWazzu]

Local following is as good as any teams'. But the reality is that Seattle is not a nationally followed team.

That will start to change.

 

[13thMan]

Just the stigma..... whatever...... moving on........

 

[nsport]

It's fan equity measurement. Absolutely worthless. Headline from MyNorthwest is totally misleading.

 

[grizbob]

Only because the bandwagoners have polluted the gene pool :mrgreen:

 

[Blitzfan]

I would like to see what the "other factors" are. I mean, can you be a rabid fan and not attend many games or buy gear? How could you possibly quantify the portion of the dedicated fan base that lives with a substandard income? I can tell you that my house is packed each Sunday with folks watching the game that can't afford to go or buy gear, yet just as loyal as anyone can be.

.Com says "The Seahawks’ home opener drew a 22.6 rating, the highest for a preseason game since Paul Allen purchased the team in 1998; and a 46 share. Those numbers are up from the preseason opener in San Diego against the Chargers (21.4 and 40) and way up last year’s second preseason game (13.2 and 30)."

Again, I'd like to see what the other factors are. Also I would bet these numbers would jump around a lot given which eleven year sample you take. The teams that are winning during that period will obviously have a better showing than teams that are struggling.

 

[AF_Hawk]

I'm sorry but if you are ranking the Saints, Chargers, Rams, Panthers and Texans fans above us, your study is seriously flawed IMO. Take this study as you would any other study, with a grain of salt.

 

[nsport]

Guys seriously... this has nothing to do with fan allegiance. Everything to do with the per-dollar value of a fan and the greater scope of economy towards the team. No doubt that Jerry Jones is #1 in this. As our team gets more public credibility and lifer fans, our numbers will climb... right now, so-so is just bout right.

 

[hawker84]

We're tucked away waaaay up in the corner of the US, where we're only known for our rain, coffee and Nirvana.. what could we possibly know about sports and being good fans?

A bunch of Drivel. Go Hawks !!!!!!

 

[Stephen SeaHawking]

The rankings are awful. Seriously, Browns fans deserve to be #1.

 

[Blitzer88]

I understand their reasoning, but still......#23? I mean really?

 

[kearly]

I'm guessing that Seattle's median income is #1 among NFL cities, and that probably factored quite a bit into their formula (the idea being that richer fans should be expected to spend more, etc). Also, our stadium has relatively low capacity. It sounds like the formula docks teams that have had some success too, since it measures where they "expect" fan interest to be, and Seattle has had above average success the last 11 years.

Remember, this isn't smart analysis, it's a formula. Whenever you take a formula full of arbitrarily weighted factors and apply it to complex analysis, you will get some "wtf" type results here and there (QBR, take a bow).

It is curious though that we were this low after an 11 year study. When was the last time Seattle didn't sell a game out? 11 years ago? Even though Seattle has some disadvantages in the formula they used, that seems way too low.

 

[rdskns4eva]

Seattle fans dont travel well. Here in Los Angeles, I see:

Packers fans, Cowboys fans, Steelers fans, Giants fan...I havent seen one Hawks fan.

Best home fans in the NFL, yup

But you really dont see many Hawks fans outside of Seattle.

Added to that, the 12th man wasnt really know to anyone until about 2003 - thats when the Media started giving more attention to it. Prior to that, no one cared about Seattle. At all.

 

[Largent80]

Seattle fans dont travel well. Here in Los Angeles, I see:

Packers fans, Cowboys fans, Steelers fans, Giants fan...I havent seen one Hawks fan.

Best home fans in the NFL, yup

But you really dont see many Hawks fans outside of Seattle.

Added to that, the 12th man wasnt really know to anyone until about 2003 - thats when the Media started giving more attention to it. Prior to that, no one cared about Seattle. At all.

Evidently you havent been to the Backstage in Culver City.

 

[rdskns4eva]

Seattle fans dont travel well. Here in Los Angeles, I see:

Packers fans, Cowboys fans, Steelers fans, Giants fan...I havent seen one Hawks fan.

Best home fans in the NFL, yup

But you really dont see many Hawks fans outside of Seattle.

Added to that, the 12th man wasnt really know to anyone until about 2003 - thats when the Media started giving more attention to it. Prior to that, no one cared about Seattle. At all.

Evidently you havent been to the Backstage in Culver City.

I've been to Culver city many times (Sony Pictures). Never been to the Backstage though.