A thorough and statistical treatise of Maryland leaving the ACC

[rthomas]

I add this as a new thread of Maryland leaving because, rather than a bunch of moaning and bitterness that has perpetuated this board, Nate Silver does it right.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com

[ForkFondler]

I add this as a new thread of Maryland leaving because, rather than a bunch of moaning and bitterness that has perpetuated this board, Nate Silver does it right.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com


Here is the crux of the biscuit: "Moreover, affinity for college football is considerably lower on the East Coast than it is in the Midwest or the South." The college football zone does not extend to the northeast. While the zone cannot be precisely defined, the border divides North Carolina from South Carolina, Kentucky from Tennessee, Indiana from Ohio, West Virginia from Maryland, and Pennsylvania from New Jersey. As the border is crossed, the football/basketball gradient shifts dramatically, and as a result the average East Coast cable subscriber will not be at all amused at the prospect of paying an extra buck a month for the privilege of watching watch Maryland and Rutgers lose on the B1G network.

[Newton_14]

I add this as a new thread of Maryland leaving because, rather than a bunch of moaning and bitterness that has perpetuated this board, Nate Silver does it right.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com

Very interesting that in his analysis which he links (http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/the-geography-of-college-football-fans-and-realignment-chaos/) to in the article, out of the 120 FBS schools, Duke ranks 51st in total Football fans. That is much higher than I expected (the ranking not number of fans). We outrank Maryland, and NC State. I would have to think a large number of those fans live in the higher tv viewership areas. Maybe Duke is better positioned for this madness than we realized.

2953

[miramar]

The numbers seem convincing, but that's not too surprising considering that he has called every state correctly in the last two presidential elections. I think that the North Dakota senator's race was his only mistake this time around.

[ns7]

Very interesting that in his analysis which he links (http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/the-geography-of-college-football-fans-and-realignment-chaos/) to in the article, out of the 120 FBS schools, Duke ranks 51st in total Football fans. That is much higher than I expected (the ranking not number of fans). We outrank Maryland, and NC State. I would have to think a large number of those fans live in the higher tv viewership areas. Maybe Duke is better positioned for this madness than we realized.

2953

His analysis on total number of football fans is a total failure, and quite shocking from someone with such a great reputation as he has. The blogosphere had quite a laugh with the article when it came out last year.

Some "claims" of the analysis include:
* Auburn having more football fans than Alabama
* Georgia Tech having more football fans than Georgia
* Virginia Tech having more football fans than LSU, Tennessee, Georgia, etc.

He made one huge mistake. He used a random internet survey with no scientific merit that assigned percentage of fans per city. For example, if more people from an Atlanta region clicked for Georgia Tech than Georgia, then the *entire* Atlanta tv market gets split by this distribution. Imagine who clicks on random internet surveys--young people, even more likely, young people in college. And what college is in Atlanta--yes, Georgia Tech. So the family of four in Marietta doesn't get counted while the young kids in dorms do.

Once again, pretty shocking that he made this mistake and didn't sanity check the results before publishing. If I were to do something like this at my job I'd probably be fired the next day.

[WakeDevil]

It's possible Duke has more basketball fans than NC State or MD. That is not the case in football.

[tele]

His analysis on total number of football fans is a total failure, and quite shocking from someone with such a great reputation as he has. The blogosphere had quite a laugh with the article when it came out last year.

Some "claims" of the analysis include:
* Auburn having more football fans than Alabama
* Georgia Tech having more football fans than Georgia
* Virginia Tech having more football fans than LSU, Tennessee, Georgia, etc.

He made one huge mistake. He used a random internet survey with no scientific merit that assigned percentage of fans per city. For example, if more people from an Atlanta region clicked for Georgia Tech than Georgia, then the *entire* Atlanta tv market gets split by this distribution. Imagine who clicks on random internet surveys--young people, even more likely, young people in college. And what college is in Atlanta--yes, Georgia Tech. So the family of four in Marietta doesn't get counted while the young kids in dorms do.

Once again, pretty shocking that he made this mistake and didn't sanity check the results before publishing. If I were to do something like this at my job I'd probably be fired the next day.

The perils and presumed privileges of aggregating others data.

[Papa John]

I have a hard time taking his rankings seriously. How is it possible that none of USC, Nebraska, or Oklahoma would be ranked in the top 10?

I'm not sure how you would come up with an accurate gauge of fan following nationwide for college football programs. I give him credit for trying, but think there needs to be more info factored into the equation. Just a quick look at which team's athletic apparel sales are highest would provide a pretty quick and easy measure of how solid his rankings are. I guarantee you there are going to be a few in the top-10 in total sales that aren't in his top-10 (e.g. USC).

I do agree with his conclusions regarding the MD/Rutgers to the B1G move. I think the financial benefit will be more marginal than they are projecting, and in about 5 years or so they're going to realize that what they thought was a case of pretty good wine is actually some pretty nasty tasting vinegar. Meanwhile, until MD and Rutgers gut their athletic administrations, they will continue to burn through money and be in the red—the additional per team revenue from the B1G will provide temporary relief, but not solve their root problems.

[ChillinDuke]

Very interesting that in his analysis which he links (http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/the-geography-of-college-football-fans-and-realignment-chaos/) to in the article, out of the 120 FBS schools, Duke ranks 51st in total Football fans. That is much higher than I expected (the ranking not number of fans). We outrank Maryland, and NC State. I would have to think a large number of those fans live in the higher tv viewership areas. Maybe Duke is better positioned for this madness than we realized.

2953

I liked Silver's analysis. Obviously, it's not perfect. But his logic seems sound. I imagine it's a good starting point for discussion.

Did anyone look at the ACC's rankings? Florida St is estimated 8th in the CONFERENCE with 813,000 fans, just above Duke with 536,000. That's good for 38th in the nation!

An exact science it's not, but maybe Newton's right. Duke may be better positioned than we thought and Florida State may be completely disillusioned.

- Chillin

PS - Based on Silver's analysis, I would be nervous if I were Wake.