Kevin wrote:Losing too much = low fan interest
Winning too much for straight seasons = low fan interest
shake it up with trades or signings to keep the fans interested just like irl.
I appreciate the quick response! Thanks for taking the time to do so! I do have questions though.
First, the second part is interesting about consistent winning drawing low fan interest. I don't think that is very realistic at all from all trackable NBA history. 2001-now on ESPN particularly has information on it. Wouldn't the consistent dynasty draw fans if it is based on real life? Like historically, the Spurs have never really shaken their roster up in the middle of a season through trades. It's interesting, but Pop tries to avoid it if he can. Despite that, however, their average attendance during the Duncan era was frequently in the top 10 of the league if not higher (by only slight differences in average attendance). The team also always finished well in the standings. This current Warriors franchise is having a similar figure with their current franchise. Though due to their dramatic talent increase over most other team's peaks, they are typically top 5 to top 3 in the league over the consistent top 10 standing with the Spurs. With that evidence, shouldn't the team win consistently to help Fan Attendance?
Second, do you know how much these things actually hurt or help the fan interest? Like I was testing this myself, and I noticed winning the same game (home vs. Pistons [11-8 record]), my fan interest varied in response. One time it went up .2 points. One time it went down .3 points. Both times were a double-digit win. I just don't really understand what the number is tracking and why.