Dean Spanos
  • Dean Spanos
  • Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

“The Chargers almost doubled Twitter followers since L.A. move, but 45 percent of total are now fake.”

That’s the headliine in thebiglead, a sports site that is owned by USA Today. Ryan Phillips says that the Chargers had less than 500,000 followers when they left San Diego. Now they boast of 805,000.

Don’t believe it, says Phillips. ”Of the Chargers’ reportedly 805,000 followers, TwitterAudit claims 359,611 are fake. That’s roughly 55 percent that are real, just over half.” Phillips notes that the Chargers “have virtually no fans in L.A. given the fact that they can’t find 27,000 of their own fans to fill the StubHub Center.”

The clincher: “The Los Angeles Rams — you know, the team people actually wanted in L.A. — only have 733,000 followers. The Chargers, who no one wanted, are outpacing them by 52,000. That premise alone is ridiculous."

  • Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

Comments

Don Bauder Feb. 23, 2018 @ 12:55 p.m.

NOTE: I tried to get to two Chargers spokespeople, beginning this morning, and have heard nothing. Best, Don Bauder

0

danfogel Feb. 23, 2018 @ 1:27 p.m.

don bauder, do you actually understand how TwitterAudit works, or are you simply reporting what was in a story someone else wrote? Because while Twitter Audit claims to show you what percentage of followers may be fake, among the things this story doesn't say is it doesn't show you what percentage of followers may simply be inactive users, and any score above 60 percent is classified as "real," while scores between 40 and 60 percent are classified as "not sure.". I also observed that while this guy referred to the Rams, he didn't bother to to provide the Rams score. So I did a twitteraudit on the Rams myself, and they have a score of 48:

https://www.twitteraudit.com/ramsnfl">https://www.twitteraudit.com/ramsnfl

Seems to me this guy and his story are dubious, at best.

0

Don Bauder Feb. 23, 2018 @ 2:06 p.m.

danfogel: If you are right -- that the story is dubious -- the Chargers could have said so when I asked for a response. USA Today is a sound operation. Best, Don Bauder

0

aardvark Feb. 23, 2018 @ 11:32 p.m.

Don: Based on previous Chargers interviews regarding SD media, it appears that the Chargers only answers the questions that they have approved of in advance. No questions about the past, and other things like that, are not addressed by Chargers "leadership".

0

Don Bauder Feb. 24, 2018 @ 7:32 a.m.

aardvark: When NFL owners told the Chargers to return and see what they could get from San Diego taxpayers, Spanos took the view that he would only talk about the future, not the past. Outrageous. I asked Fabiani at the time if this was his idea, and whether it was sound public relations. Of course, the self-appointed Master of Disaster did not reply, just as the team's PR man named Rupprecht did not reply yesterday.

The Big Lead post asked, "So are Dean Spanos and his idiot sons buying Twitter followers to make it look like they have a huge following in their new city?" Best, Don Bauder

0

swell Feb. 24, 2018 @ 7:04 a.m.

You saw it here first! Chargers secret Chexit plan to move to Britain. Notice the bus in the picture above- the doors and the driver are on the wrong side. This is no American bus. Was the LA move just a temporary distraction from the Master Plan?

0

Don Bauder Feb. 24, 2018 @ 7:34 a.m.

swell: It will be a sub-zero day in hell when the Chargers management comes up with what could be called "a Master Plan." Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Feb. 24, 2018 @ 7:41 a.m.

Rich Gibson: I favor the SDSU plan. However, I do NOT favor the tearing down of the stadium to build a cozier football stadium. If this move is to improve education, a new football stadium should be no part of it. I think a number of San Diegans won't vote for the SDSU plan because of that plan to throw away money on a new stadium. Then, unfortunately, San Diego may be stuck with the pro soccer plan -- a land grab if I have ever seen one. Best, Don Bauder

1

aardvark Feb. 24, 2018 @ 9:39 a.m.

Don: In either plan, the stadium comes down.

0

swell Feb. 24, 2018 @ 3:29 p.m.

I agree Don; schools should be about education, not potentially profitable sports. Not about corrupt recruiters scouring the land for athletes who will bring the school fame & fortune. Whether or not they profit by it, or pay taxes on those profits is irrelevant- there is no logical connection between education and spectator sports. The best universities in the world tend to avoid commercial sports entertainment. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/24/the-1...">https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/24/the-1...

OTOH, it is possible for a school to make slightly more than they spend. Not sure if you can get a quality education at these places: http://ceoworld.biz/2017/07/12/americ...">http://ceoworld.biz/2017/07/12/americ...

1

Don Bauder Feb. 24, 2018 @ 9:14 p.m.

swell:... or about recruiters who bring to the school athletes who cause infamy because of money they allegedly took from gamblers.

As to those 20 schools that make a profit, however slight, on sports: Probably every one of those schools is academically good, with the possible exception of some southern schools (not including Texas A&M, which is good academically.) There has been an overproduction of PhDs in many fields, so schools that were considered so-so in the 1950s now provide a good education. The same is true, incidentally, of symphony orchestras. Schools like Juilliard, Curtis, Indiana University and dozens of others crank out so many excellent musicians that all but the tiniest orchestras are good these days. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Feb. 25, 2018 @ 8:13 a.m.

swell: You can probably get a quality education at all or most of those schools. The U.S. has cranked out a surfeit of PhDs. As a result, most universities have good faculties.

It's the same with symphony orchestras. Schools like Juilliard, Curtis, and Indiana University have turned out so many good musicians that even some the orchestras in medium-sized markets are pretty good. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Feb. 24, 2018 @ 9:58 a.m.

aardvark: Those are the PLANS. But what is the reality? Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Feb. 24, 2018 @ 10 a.m.

John Sikes: I am glad you are bringing up the NRA when discussing the NFL. Those two organizations belong together. Best, Don Bauder

0

dwbat Feb. 24, 2018 @ 12:57 p.m.

And NRA/NFL sometimes belong with NIMBY ;-)!

1

Don Bauder Feb. 25, 2018 @ 8:08 a.m.

dwbat: I often empathize with NIMBYs -- never the NFL or NRA. Best, Don Bauder

0

Sign in to comment

Get $5 off any Reader event

Sign up for our email list to get your promo code

Close