The Jacksonville Jaguars

[Tacachale]

There have been all kinds of studies and reports on the correlation between winning and attendance. The notion is that consistently winning affects attendance, but it isn't the only factor. Other things like big name players on the roster and good marketing can also factor in; according to some folks, stadium experience helps as well. I suppose that's debatable, but the fact remains that the Jags' attendance has improved for two years despite playing consistently worse.

[KenFSU]

Last, when you use the word "empirically," you typically want to present some evidence. If you want to conduct a study on the factors that affect game attendance and which are most important, I think we'd all be interested. Until then, let's not claim to be empirically proving causal relationships, particularly using anecdotes.

Funny you should mention that

I actually conducted a pretty in-depth regression analysis on Jaguars attendance last year, examining regular season games played from 2005 onward (after stadium capacity was reduced to 67,164), omitting that bizarre stretch of six consecutive home games at the beginning of the 2009 season that saw attendance drop by nearly 20,000 per game due to a sharp economic downturn coupled with widespread rumors that Weaver was in talks to move the franchise to Los Angeles.

I looked at every (non-economic) variable I could think of, from winning percentage, to past season winning percentage, to opponent attributes, to game day temperature, to national television coverage, all the way down to chance of rain, in an attempt to identify factors that affected attendance (keeping in mind changes in how attendance was reported over various seasons).

To strip some of the economic influence from attendance numbers, I modeled the data with the belief that mean annual attendance was roughly representative of what the market could support in that particular economy in that particular year. And conversely, any deviation from that mean was largely a reflection of consumer taste or distaste for each week’s particular game based on our multitude of independent variables. Thus, in order to roughly normalize attendance data against much broader economic effects, instead of using actual attendance as my dependent variable, I used actual attendance relative the seasonal mean (actual attendance for the game minus mean attendance for that year’s season). This calculation output the number of fans over or under that year’s mean that attended each game based on the given set of variables.

Of all of these many factors, I found exactly three variables that had a pronounced effect on attendance.

I"ll copy and paste from my findings:

"The first statistically significant independent variable is opponent's winning percentage, which has a beta of 1,302.14. Holding all other variables constant, attendance will increase by approximately 1,300 fans over seasonal mean if the opponent is undefeated (seasonal and prior-10 game records yielded similar results), increase by 650 fans for a team with an equal number of wins and losses (b1 x 0.5), all the way down to an increase of zero fans for a team that has not yet won a game (b1 x 0.00). This indicates that city residents have a preference for watching winning opponents play.

The second significant independent variable was relative popularity of opponent. Every year, Harris Interactive – a market research firm headquartered in New York City – releases a popularity ranking of NFL teams, listing each franchise from the most popular to the least. Using this variable allowed me to examine how the overall popularity of the visiting team impacted home game attendance here in Jacksonville. This variable yields a beta of 30.62. For the sake of a clearer equation, I inverted the popularity rankings before running regression analysis. By inverting the popularity rankings (most popular team =31, least popular =0), a positive rather than negative beta is produced. This beta demonstrates that for each additional tick upwards in opponent popularity, approximately 31 additional fans will attend a game. For example, the 10th most popular team in the league (inverted to 31-10 = 21) would draw approximately 651 additional fans (31 x 21) to the Jaguars’ stadium.

The final statistically significant independent variable tested was national television coverage, which yielded a beta of 479.17.  Because this independent variable is binary and either switched off (0 for no national television) or on (1 for national television), the beta simply states that 479 residents will make their decision on whether to attend the game based on if it is or isn't on national television.

What was most surprising is that the independent variable that I initially felt would show the strongest correlation with attendance (Jaguars winning percentage) actually showed no statistically relevant correlation. In fact, Jaguars attendance seems far more correlated with characteristics of the visiting team than the performance of the home team. Jacksonville – like other large cities in Florida – has a large population of transplants from other areas of the country. Perhaps these transplants, along with a desire to "see the stars come to town' may factor into consumer preference appearing to be so opponent-driven."

Of course you can never isolate every variable, and things like marketing and advertising expenditure certainly can increase attendance, but the point is, it's realllly hard to show any statistical correlation between winning and attendance here in Jacksonville.

[BridgeTroll]

In fact, Jaguars attendance seems far more correlated with characteristics of the visiting team than the performance of the home team.

This does not surprise me at all... as for the rest of your data... all I can say is... WOW!

[Tacachale]

Very impressive, but I think the biggest variable missing is that the Jaguars have been consistently bad for 13 years. Since 2000 we've compiled a win-loss record of 91-117. In 13 years we've only seen 3 winning seasons (9-7 in 2004, 12-4 in 2005 and 11-5 in 2007), two playoffs appearances (both wildcards, 2005 and 2007) and one playoff win (2007). We haven't had a decent season in 6 years.

Other than two stray playoffs runs we haven't had enough wins for the data to be significant in this entire century.

[downtownjag]

KenFSU get ready for a "nu-uh" type arguement littered with with sarcasm

[KenFSU]

Very impressive, but I think the biggest variable missing is that the Jaguars have been consistently bad for 13 years. Since 2000 we've compiled a win-loss record of 91-117. In 13 years we've only seen 3 winning seasons (9-7 in 2004, 12-4 in 2005 and 11-5 in 2007), two playoffs appearances (both wildcards, 2005 and 2007) and one playoff win (2007). We haven't had a decent season in 6 years.

Other than two stray playoffs runs we haven't had enough wins for the data to be significant in this entire century.

Interestingly enough, for the specific time period that I looked at (the post-tarp era from 2005 to 2011), the Jaguars had a record of exactly 56 wins and 56 losses, spread over two winning seasons (2005, 2007), two break-even seasons (2006 and 2010), and three losing seasons (2008, 2009, and 2011). Because of the smallish sample, I also utilized several "momentum" based variables, such as whether the Jags won their last game and their record over their last three to five games, which I hoped would help serve as a sort of snapshot of how the time was playing at that moment in time, regardless of overall record.

You're right though, I'd love to see the picture the data would paint after ten more seasons. More than anything else, I really think the single biggest factor over the last few years has been the economy and the horrific doom and gloom that hung over the franchise toward the end of the Weaver era. That incredible (thankfully short-lived) dropoff in 2008 was just rock bottom, and so many people in the city seemed to have genuinely given up hope on the team's long-term prospects in Jacksonville. Such a depressing time to be a Jags fan. With so much insanity, I completely agree that it's tough to forecast or infer that much from the data just yet.

Just to be clear, my intent was never to suggest that there can be no correlation between winning and box office success. I just don't think that it's wise for anyone to assume that the former guarantees the ladder. I just really believe that in a market this size, the 10,000-20,000 discretionary, non-hardcore ticket buyers that could potentially make or break the franchise's long term viability are going to be swayed equally (if not more) by the game day experience -- things like the Bud Zone, proposed video walls, and other amenities -- than by the quality of the team on the field.

Anyway, I'd love the find the time to plug the 2012 data into the model, re-run it with a couple of new variables, and see what happens.

But I'm much MORE eager to see the Jags continue taking steps in the right direction as they have been beginning with the Gene Smith firing

[Tacachale]

^It's very good stuff. I just take the approach that our two inarguably good seasons are basically outliers amid 13 years of mediocre to poor seasons. They're not going to affect things much, especially in a league where so many sales are season tickets bought before the season even begins.

I think that (say) four consecutive seasons in a row of winning records and playoff appearances would in fact increase the Jags' ticket sales. I also think other on-field changes, such as adding some big stars to the roster, would move tickets. However, I agree that the game day experience can and does have some effect, and it's more predictable than relying on the team's performance. I also agree that the economy and the negative energy prior to 2010 was a bigger factor in our ticket sales than anything else.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

I can't don't want to get into the economics of this, but there are funds collected specifically for stadium renovations.  You can't lump the lack of money in the library fund in with a surplus of money in the football fund - it doesn't work that way.  Sure, it'd be nice if Khan hopped onto his boat, steamed out to where ever he keeps his money tree and clipped enough branches to make it happen, but he's got to ask the questions first.  Chances are if he asks the right questions and with enough frequency, he's going to get what he wants.

I wish you would explain the economics. So there is $50 million lying around somewhere that is intended for the stadium? Then please forgive me! If the scoreboard is the most pressing maintenance issue at Everbank, by all means, spend that money that is just waiting around.

I don't think that I ever said there was $50M laying around, but I did say that you can't mix the sports funds with the library funds.  With regards to the videoboard, I'll just take the quote from Lamping:

" Particularly in this community, where we have a lot of transplants that have other teams that they also like to follow. Statistical analysis, replays, and now that the NFL has allowed for the replays of what the referees are actually looking at...If we can do that, if we can give fans the information that they desire, we know that they'll have a better experience when they come here. If they have a better experience to come here, and if we do our job in terms of putting a team on the field that they can be proud to support, we know they're going to come in even bigger numbers. ...We think this is the fastest, quickest, most efficient investment we can make to really change the dynamic when people think about EverBank Field."

There was another statement he made on the radio that should strike home with a lot of you 'civic duty' types:

One thing I would share with everyone; It is not your civic responsibilities to support the Jaguars. If you live in Jacksonville it is not your civic responsibility to support the team. If you believe that we're providing you with something of value that you're prepared to invest your hard earned money in, then support the Jaguars. I can make a great argument that having the Jaguars here is really good for this community, but people should not be guilted into supporting this franchise any more than people should be guilted into listening to your radio station or going to a particular restaurant in this market. We have a lot of work to do, I think we're making progress. I know we made a tremendous amount of progress off the field last year and now we need to make sure we can continue that and at the same time put a really good team on the field. If we do that I think everything else will take care of itself, but we have to keep our eye on the things we need to deal with and if we don't do that as an organization we're doing a disservice to this community.

[PeeJayEss]

KenFSU get ready for a "nu-uh" type arguement littered with with sarcasm

Thanks for your great contribution to the thread, and for your grasp of irony (in your defense, this sentence is littered with sarcasm), but not uh!

Whoa, Ken, that's pretty interesting.

I actually conducted a pretty in-depth regression analysis on Jaguars attendance last year, examining regular season games played from 2005 onward (after stadium capacity was reduced to 67,164), omitting that bizarre stretch of six consecutive home games at the beginning of the 2009 season that saw attendance drop by nearly 20,000 per game due to a sharp economic downturn coupled with widespread rumors that Weaver was in talks to move the franchise to Los Angeles.

I looked at every (non-economic) variable I could think of, from winning percentage, to past season winning percentage, to opponent attributes, to game day temperature, to national television coverage, all the way down to chance of rain, in an attempt to identify factors that affected attendance (keeping in mind changes in how attendance was reported over various seasons).

To strip some of the economic influence from attendance numbers, I modeled the data with the belief that mean annual attendance was roughly representative of what the market could support in that particular economy in that particular year. And conversely, any deviation from that mean was largely a reflection of consumer taste or distaste for each week’s particular game based on our multitude of independent variables. Thus, in order to roughly normalize attendance data against much broader economic effects, instead of using actual attendance as my dependent variable, I used actual attendance relative the seasonal mean (actual attendance for the game minus mean attendance for that year’s season). This calculation output the number of fans over or under that year’s mean that attended each game based on the given set of variables.

Of all of these many factors, I found exactly three variables that had a pronounced effect on attendance.

I"ll copy and paste from my findings:

"The first statistically significant independent variable is opponent's winning percentage, which has a beta of 1,302.14. Holding all other variables constant, attendance will increase by approximately 1,300 fans over seasonal mean if the opponent is undefeated (seasonal and prior-10 game records yielded similar results), increase by 650 fans for a team with an equal number of wins and losses (b1 x 0.5), all the way down to an increase of zero fans for a team that has not yet won a game (b1 x 0.00). This indicates that city residents have a preference for watching winning opponents play.

The second significant independent variable was relative popularity of opponent. Every year, Harris Interactive – a market research firm headquartered in New York City – releases a popularity ranking of NFL teams, listing each franchise from the most popular to the least. Using this variable allowed me to examine how the overall popularity of the visiting team impacted home game attendance here in Jacksonville. This variable yields a beta of 30.62. For the sake of a clearer equation, I inverted the popularity rankings before running regression analysis. By inverting the popularity rankings (most popular team =31, least popular =0), a positive rather than negative beta is produced. This beta demonstrates that for each additional tick upwards in opponent popularity, approximately 31 additional fans will attend a game. For example, the 10th most popular team in the league (inverted to 31-10 = 21) would draw approximately 651 additional fans (31 x 21) to the Jaguars’ stadium.

The final statistically significant independent variable tested was national television coverage, which yielded a beta of 479.17.  Because this independent variable is binary and either switched off (0 for no national television) or on (1 for national television), the beta simply states that 479 residents will make their decision on whether to attend the game based on if it is or isn't on national television.

What was most surprising is that the independent variable that I initially felt would show the strongest correlation with attendance (Jaguars winning percentage) actually showed no statistically relevant correlation. In fact, Jaguars attendance seems far more correlated with characteristics of the visiting team than the performance of the home team. Jacksonville – like other large cities in Florida – has a large population of transplants from other areas of the country. Perhaps these transplants, along with a desire to "see the stars come to town' may factor into consumer preference appearing to be so opponent-driven."

Of course you can never isolate every variable, and things like marketing and advertising expenditure certainly can increase attendance, but the point is, it's realllly hard to show any statistical correlation between winning and attendance here in Jacksonville.

Couple of questions:
-Did you look at day of week and time of day for the games. I imagine some of that effect can get conflated with the nationally-televised binary variable, but that is one that I would initial think to have some effect.
-I am always so curious about the national games. It does seem anecdotally that more people are interested in attending them. Do you think this is due to simply the fact that they are televised more widely, or because of why they were scheduled to be nationally-televised in the first place (division rival game, replay of the prior season's super-bowl, two teams that are expected to be good before the season)? I feel like there are so many factors that go into the nationally-televised game. Perhaps its a desire to be part of the event, or to fill the seats to project a better image of the Jags nationally, or the reasons discussed above for which the network wants to televise it nationally.
-For winning percentage, is "seasonal" the end-of-season or the season to that point?
-Do you have anything like pre-season rankings in there, or some variable that measures the "hype" (media coverage, big pickups/trades, etc)?
-I would think it might be more telling to measure the relative popularity by a weighted variable (fan base, population in home market, merchandise sales, local fans even [I bet you could get data on that]) rather than ranking. I would expect that to give this variable more resolution.
-I don't know about removing 3/4 of the 2009 season from the equation. Perhaps an additional dummy variable thrown in so that you could differentiate what you believe to be an outlier, but there is still differences between the data for those 6 games that might be of interest. Plus, those games were coming off a very bad season, so your trailing-10 percentage may actually show some movement in addition to the "recession" variable.
-I wonder, does your seasonal normalization for economic effects also remove any annual effects from changes in the team (hype, pre-season rankings, previous season record, hirings/firings, etc)? If every game is normalized by the average attendance that season, then there would be nothing to show for changes between seasons, right?

This is good stuff. You should do it for every season AND every team.  Can metrojax fund some research?

[duvaldude08]

Macky Weaver resigns.

Jaguars senior VP of sales Macky Weaver resigns
Weaver was charter member of team's front office
Published On: Feb 11 2013 04:28:26 PM EST  Updated On: Feb 11 2013 04:31:20 PM EST
Small TextMedium TextLarge Text.Print Email Tweet  .

Macky Weaver (left) sits alongside his uncle, former Jaguars owner Wayne Weaver, at a news conference in 2011.
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. - Macky Weaver, a charter member of the Jacksonville Jaguars' front office, announced his resignation from the team Monday after 19 years with the organization.

He will leave later this month to "explore other career opportunities," a news release reads.

The Jaguars announced Weaver's resignation to team staff Monday, along with the following appointments:

•Hussain Naqi has been promoted to senior vice president of fan engagement, effective immediately.
•Chad Johnson has been promoted to senior vice president of ticket sales, effective immediately.
•Megha Parekh will join the organization on March 1 as vice president and general counsel. Parekh is currently an associate at Proskauer Rose LLP in New York.
Weaver held the title of senior vice president of sales since 2010 and has served the Jaguars in a variety of marketing roles since joining the franchise in 1994 under original owner Wayne Weaver.

"Macky Weaver is one of a handful of people who can say they helped put the Jaguars on the map here in Jacksonville, and he should always be very proud of that," Jaguars owner Shad Khan said. "I'll always appreciate his personal efforts to introduce me to the community and make me feel at home as the new owner of the Jaguars."

"I would like to thank Wayne and Shad for giving me the opportunity they have given me over the past 19 years," Weaver said. "I am proud of the people I worked with and what we were able to accomplish, especially the past three years of having all home games televised. Finally, I will always be the biggest Jaguars supporter as I understand what the Jaguars mean to Jacksonville. I will continue to make sure our community doesn't lose sight of that importance."

Weaver will act as a senior adviser to Jaguars president Mark Lamping in 2013.

"Macky's contributions to the Jaguars will be lasting, and I am happy that I will be able to call on him in the future," Lamping said. "Macky will be a success in the next stage of his career, and we thank him for all he did for the Jaguars and our community. Everyone in the Jaguars family wishes Macky and his family the very best. Macky leaves the Jaguars as a friend."

Copyright 2013 by News4Jax.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[spuwho]

Who is left from the old regime now? Anyone?

[duvaldude08]

Who is left from the old regime now? Anyone?

Same thing I was thinking.

[kells904]

The mascot.

[duvaldude08]

The mascot.

And he's getting pretty old now. He's not gonna be able to do all those stunts after awhile 

[copperfiend]

Who is left from the old regime now? Anyone?

I think some people in scouting are still there. Tim Mingey is one but he is probably close to retirement. Other than that, Brian Sexton is the only one that comes to mind.