Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark McLeod
Teams missing from last season are from these places (# missing / place):
12 ---- CA
10 ---- TX
10 ---- TN
9 ----- Canada-ON
7 ----- Canada-AB
6 ----- MN
6 ----- Israel
5 ----- WA
5 ----- PA
5 ----- NY
5 ----- MI
4 ----- VA
4 ----- UT
4 ----- OH
4 ----- NJ
4 ----- China
4 ----- Canada-QC
4 ----- AZ
3 ----- OR
3 ----- NC
3 ----- Mexico
3 ----- IN
3 ----- GA
3 ----- AR
2 ----- SC
2 ----- NH
2 ----- MD
2 ----- HI
2 ----- FL
2 ----- Australia
1 ----- WI
1 ----- United Arab Emirates
1 ----- RI
1 ----- OK
1 ----- NV
1 ----- MT
1 ----- MO
1 ----- ME
1 ----- MA
1 ----- LA
1 ----- KS
1 ----- IL
1 ----- IA
1 ----- DE
1 ----- CT
1 ----- Columbia
1 ----- Canada-BC
1 ----- AL
|
Fun with numbers. It would be interesting to see how this changes looking at the "per capita" for the groups (eg 12 CA_missing/240 CA_current=5%)
I suspect that TN and Israel are harder hit with losses then CA or MI. Question, how can stable teams hear about struggling teams soon enough so they can help them. Potentially keeping some from being lost teams. Are growth initiatives different and compatible with retention initiatives?
Thanks for the data.