College hoops: 7th most popular US sport

[Knicks411]

Besides not ranking all sports or at least a top five, it also doesn't include anyone under 18 who are skewing away from baseball. Would be willing to bet that this poll shows MLB in fourth, at best, in a few more years.

I've seen this line of thinking before; I dunno, I also think baseball is the kind of sport that you appreciate more as you get older. I don't see baseball going anywhere

 

[MikeSU02]

I've seen this line of thinking before; I dunno, I also think baseball is the kind of sport that you appreciate more as you get older. I don't see baseball going anywhere

But it's already dropped 9% as alluded to in that study. Why would that trend change?

It's a slow game that isn't time-boxed by a clock.

I don't think it lends itself to a younger audience that has more screens open and alternative entertainment at the drop of a hat.

 

[Cusefan95]

Favorite is a silly way of gauging total interest in a sport. Here's your real list, you just have to trust me on its accuracy...

NFL

College Football
MLB
NBA

College Basketball


Everything else.

Seems about right to me. The advantage hockey has in the "everything else" category is the median income of an NHL fan is way above the median income of a fan in any other sport - but it's always been a niche sport. HUGE in New England/Minnesota/Wisconsin/Michigan/parts of NYS - very limited appeal outside those states

 

[Knicks411]

But it's already dropped 9% as alluded to in that study. Why would that trend change?

It's a slow game that isn't time-boxed by a clock.

I don't think it lends itself to a younger audience that has more screens open and alternative entertainment at the drop of a hat.

To be fair, I didn't read the link at all...

But it's 9% over 30 years, right? I'm not saying it's going to be as popular as it was 30 years ago, but I don't think the popularity is going to continue to fall. Just doing some quick googling around, Baseball was at 13% 2 years ago, so it's not like it's been a steady drop, it trended up to 16% last year and then down to 14% this year. Since 2008, baseball has been pretty steady in the 14-16% range; I can't find all of the history drop was probably in the first 10-15 years of the study. Even 16 years ago, in 1998, baseball was at 18%, and it was 17% as recently as 2010. I think there's probably too much noise in the data to decide there is a huge difference between the 18% it was in 1998 and the 14% it was this year.

And MLB has basically set a new revenue record every year for the past decade. I'm not expecting it to pass the NFL, and perhaps college football passes it, but I would take your bet at it finishing 4th at best in a few years for sure.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2012/01/26/Research-and-Ratings/Harris-Poll.aspx

Got a lot of my data from this link, btw

 

[NYCSUGrad]

I notice boxing isn't on that list. It used to be huge. I guess wrestling and MMA have crowded it out. I used to watch as a kid, with my sports nut dad. These days, while I enjoy a little sparring with my trainer, I really am not into the violence. Which is why I couldn't care less about hockey.

 

[STEVEHOLT]

People that like baseball dont care if its slow. People that dont like baseball wouldnt care if it were fast.

Here is an interesting baseball fact I've heard debated.

Did you know that in most baseball games, the winning team scores more runs in one inning than the losing team does in the entire game?

 

[Knicks411]

People that like baseball dont care if its slow. People that dont like baseball wouldnt care if it were fast.

Here is an interesting baseball fact I've heard debated.

Did you know that in most baseball games, the winning team scores more runs in one inning than the losing team does in the entire game?

I've seen that before; I have never seen research saying whether or not its true. Think it was Bill James or Tom Boswell where i ehard it

 

[CaptainJ]

I now watch Mets games this way: DVR it, then skip the Mets on the field, and stop the DVR and watch the game as soon as a Met gets on the bases. It cuts a 3+ hour game down considerably. I do miss hearing the announcers, but it's just too long. but when they have Ralph Kiner on I listen to every word that man utters. Hope he's healthy enough this season to come on.

I'd like to start by saying this isn't directed much at the poster of the post quoted, but more of an endeavor for many. There are times in the past when I would have ridiculed this either openly or at least inwardly when I have enough restraint and maybe respect for the situation, but in my current level of sobriety, I can see the practicality of such and realize everyone has differences and if it makes you happy, it cant be that bad! Just that back in the day the Mets sometimes had an amazing defense. On average, I think the element of fear might be involved more when watching a team on defense, and the excitement could reach a higher level if they do something unexpected to reverse that feeling you had rather than take you there from the more neutral setting(pleasure spiked with the anticipation of pain). Of course that's just a theory of mine that I came up with at the moment, so you may want to experiment with defense to stimulate different electrochemical pathways in the brain. I'm not trying to convert you, just throwing that out there for you and any other readers who may have already pondered it.

I think a lot of us(myself included) have sports bias, similar to how we have team bias, and the poll seems askew. (speaking of askew, google that word. Interesting results, if you slidden a ways down the spectrum of sobriety. Still a bit humorous if you're not, I assume) In different regions of the country, different sports are weighted greatly differently. Beyond regions, as others have suggested age could play a part, and as others almost vaguely hinted at with lists of certain cities, the color of ones collar could also have an effect.

Truth is that this is actually likely just as believable, if not more believable than most of the drivel from the establishment media and the first layer(s) of "alternative" media, even if some of it started out good. Those in control of the media love that we focus such energy arguing about all these polls and articles on here rather than showing more concern for material and other matters. I'm as much a culprit as anyone at times, but just feel it's a healthy reminder for us at times to notice how much of our being/time certain concerns constantly consume. I'm not saying anyone needs to follow the path of liberation like Tee, but if "peak oil" exists, I'd assume our inner resources are similar, at least in the moment, if not for a longer term. Just a friendly public service announcement from (words deleted, you know better to make those attributions here!)

 

[MCC]

I had a conversation last year with a statistician who consults for Harris Interactive. He said he finds these polls laughable because (1) Harris doesn't have any sense of sampling error and (2) Harris weights responses with an arbitrary "propensity to be online" factor depending on the demographics of the population the respondent appears to belong to. You can imagine the error introduced into the results - and it's the worst kind; i.e. subjective.

I suspect the results here are directionally correct. I do wonder if any seasonal bias is at play: by running the online survey annually in mid-December does one select out people less likely to be online because their favorite sport isn't in season or is at a nadir (e.g. CBB hasn't even begun conference play, NBA is mired in early season doldrums)? Does one select in people whose favorite sport is at its zenith (e.g. NFLplayoffs, CFB bowl selection)?

Some may call out the small sample size relative to the U.S. population, but the law of large numbers - specifically Khintchine's law or the "weak law" if I recall my stats correctly - shows that even seemingly small sample sizes will yield results that are "within the margins" and approximate the expected (or in this case "true" value).

I think the biggest problem here is likely self-selection. In designing a useful poll, you must try to adhere to random selection. By selecting respondents who volunteered to take place in the poll - essentially self-nominated respondents who are likely atypical of the very population they are (or at least claim to be) a part of - you've violated random selection. I'd like to know what the response rate (fraction of people responding out of the total pool of inquires / invitations) for the Harris poll was - that would also inform a position on whether the results are biased.

I suspect someone more knowledgeable RE: stats and poll design will opine and / or correct me if I've made any misstatements on the LLN or similar esoterica.

 

[Rocco]

College bball > NHL.

'Nuff said.