Interesting info from NYTimes on college football popularity | Syracusefan.com

Interesting info from NYTimes on college football popularity


Sorry, that YouGov data is absolute crap.

And the question that Silver is trying to answer is actually very easy. He should ask someone who knows. ;)
 
Sorry, that YouGov data is absolute crap.

And the question that Silver is trying to answer is actually very easy. He should ask someone who knows. ;)

I know, really. Aren't there several different sports polls conducted by the likes of TNS and Harris that have that information? Or is it only available for pay now?

Cheers,
Neil
 
Other than the Louisville game in 2006, I've never heard anybody talk about Rutgers football or basketball in NYC. 1 big game in 100 years.
 
I know, really. Aren't there several different sports polls conducted by the likes of TNS and Harris that have that information? Or is it only available for pay now?

Cheers,
Neil

Silver's with the Times now, he should have a research budget! ;)

His methodology shows Oregon having about the same total "fans" as UConn. Ummmm, no.
 
Yup, Rutgers has more fans that Florida State --- and so does BC. Yup

Pure garbage. And have others have said, there is NO CHANCE there are 300,000 RU fans in NYC.
 
I mean, you see all these RU shirts and hats in NYC...right?...wait on my walk to work this morning I actually saw 0. See SU gear all the time in NYC. If there were 300,000 Rutgers fans in NYC, shouldn't they be the ones that buy more than half of the tickets to the BET? I believe those are actually Syracuse fans.
 
I know, really. Aren't there several different sports polls conducted by the likes of TNS and Harris that have that information? Or is it only available for pay now?

Cheers,
Neil

Most of those polls are conducted with only 2-3,000 respondents. That this was a poll of 30,000 is probably a much better sampling and representation than those other polls you mention.
 
Silver's with the Times now, he should have a research budget! ;)

His methodology shows Oregon having about the same total "fans" as UConn. Ummmm, no.

Are you saying Oregon should have a lot more or UCONN?
 
Most of those polls are conducted with only 2-3,000 respondents. That this was a poll of 30,000 is probably a much better sampling and representation than those other polls you mention.

It was not a scientific poll. And then he overlayed Google search data to size the market. I love reading Silver, but it's horrendous methodology. Anyone who's so much as taken an undergrad class in polling and statistics could write a thesis on how awful it is.
 
Most of those polls are conducted with only 2-3,000 respondents. That this was a poll of 30,000 is probably a much better sampling and representation than those other polls you mention.

The College Census poll are internet fans who happen upon the site. It's all totally random and unscientific. He says so right in the article.

And then Silver tries to add another totally unscientific piece to it by using the revenue reporting documents institutions file with the OPE/DOE which has no true control over how institutions place those revenues and in which categories.

Lastly, he "proofs" himself by saying that the Top 3 are usually in the Top 3-4 in attendance, forgetting that Tennessee is also usually in the Top 5 in attendance and didn't even make the Top 20 list.

Do you seriously believe that 7 schools in the ACC and 3 from the Big East have more football fans than FSU?

Cheers,
Neil
 
It was not a scientific poll. And then he overlayed Google search data to size the market. I love reading Silver, but it's horrendous methodology. Anyone who's so much as taken an undergrad class in polling and statistics could write a thesis on how awful it is.

I don't disagree with you at all about the methodology. I've often disagreed with his methods. But unscientific or not, I'd generally trust a sample of 30,000 extrapolated to markets than I would a "scientific" poll of 2 or 3,000.

A lot of advertisers use Google keyword searches by region to formulate their market strategies. So while Silver's methods might not jive with the scientific community, they're not unheard of.
 
The College Census poll are internet fans who happen upon the site. It's all totally random and unscientific. He says so right in the article.

And then Silver tries to add another totally unscientific piece to it by using the revenue reporting documents institutions file with the OPE/DOE which has no true control over how institutions place those revenues and in which categories.

Lastly, he "proofs" himself by saying that the Top 3 are usually in the Top 3-4 in attendance, forgetting that Tennessee is also usually in the Top 5 in attendance and didn't even make the Top 20 list.

Do you seriously believe that 7 schools in the ACC and 3 from the Big East have more football fans than FSU?

Cheers,
Neil

And as you know, there are several sources that just ask "what is your favorite college football team" and then break responses down by geography. I guess the Times can't afford to get Nate that data. :bat:
 
I don't disagree with you at all about the methodology. I've often disagreed with his methods. But unscientific or not, I'd generally trust a sample of 30,000 extrapolated to markets than I would a "scientific" poll of 2 or 3,000.

Well, then you don't understand sampling. Believe me, a well composed scientific sample of 3,000 is about 1,000,000 times more accurate than a deeply biased sample of 30,000.

More proof of how the American education system has failed. ;)
 
I don't disagree with you at all about the methodology. I've often disagreed with his methods. But unscientific or not, I'd generally trust a sample of 30,000 extrapolated to markets than I would a "scientific" poll of 2 or 3,000.

A lot of advertisers use Google keyword searches by region to formulate their market strategies. So while Silver's methods might not jive with the scientific community, they're not unheard of.

I said this to you last summer during the BiG expansion and I'll say it again. Please be aware that you are posting on the Syracuse Orange board where we have actual posters who may work for ESPN or who have connections to those who work there or in other media and know what the data from more scientific research shows.

Cheers,
Neil
 
The College Census poll are internet fans who happen upon the site. It's all totally random and unscientific. He says so right in the article.

And then Silver tries to add another totally unscientific piece to it by using the revenue reporting documents institutions file with the OPE/DOE which has no true control over how institutions place those revenues and in which categories.

Lastly, he "proofs" himself by saying that the Top 3 are usually in the Top 3-4 in attendance, forgetting that Tennessee is also usually in the Top 5 in attendance and didn't even make the Top 20 list.

Do you seriously believe that 7 schools in the ACC and 3 from the Big East have more football fans than FSU?

Cheers,
Neil

That's untrue about the OPE/DOE... they are instructed how to file athletic revenues. They must file either as auxiliary income if the athletics are self-supporting or student services. However... the survey also indicates which category they're filed in. Further... the institutions also must file a separate athletics revenue statement because of the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act requirements. So whether those surveys have revenues reported in standard form or not, the government has separate reports for the EADA athletics revenue.
 
I said this to you last summer during the BiG expansion and I'll say it again. Please be aware that you are posting on the Syracuse Orange board where we have actual posters who may work for ESPN or who have connections to those who work there or in other media and know what the data from more scientific research shows.

Cheers,
Neil

To be fair though Neil, those posters are definitely jerks.

:)
 
I said this to you last summer during the BiG expansion and I'll say it again. Please be aware that you are posting on the Syracuse Orange board where we have actual posters who may work for ESPN or who have connections to those who work there or in other media and know what the data from more scientific research shows.

Cheers,
Neil

I'll say this again to you in response... please be advised that I have friends that work at ESPN and in the media and athletics, and I might have a little insight of my own.
 
That's untrue about the OPE/DOE... they are instructed how to file athletic revenues. They must file either as auxiliary income if the athletics are self-supporting or student services. However... the survey also indicates which category they're filed in. Further... the institutions also must file a separate athletics revenue statement because of the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act requirements. So whether those surveys have revenues reported in standard form or not, the government has separate reports for the EADA athletics revenue.

Having seen those actual reports and spoken with some who have filled them out, there is a lot of leeway in how they report revenue and where they place it, specifically $$$ received from the conference.

Cheers,
Neil
 
Sorry, that YouGov data is absolute crap.

And the question that Silver is trying to answer is actually very easy. He should ask someone who knows. ;)

The source that he is trying to normalize against is garbage. Look at what the numbers for schools are SU had a higher value than most of the SEC, Big12, and Pac12 schools. Does anyone think SU has a greater following than UGA?
 
Well, then you don't understand sampling. Believe me, a well composed scientific sample of 3,000 is about 1,000,000 times more accurate than a deeply biased sample of 30,000.

More proof of how the American education system has failed. ;)

Or more proof that I have a difference of opinion. I know how statistics work. I just think polls of 2,000 people when applied to an entire country is still not very representative even if all selection bias is removed.
 
Having seen those actual reports and spoken with some who have filled them out, there is a lot of leeway in how they report revenue and where they place it, specifically $$$ received from the conference.

Cheers,
Neil

The money from the conferences is sometimes distributed among all sports, some sports or no sports. You're right about that. But if you're looking at total revenue, that can be easily found in the EADA reports separate from the institution filings under IPEDS.

By the way... I've been studying these reports for six months in a project I'm doing. So I'm very, very familiar with how they work.

As I said earlier: don't assume I don't know what I'm talking about on these subjects. I've been in broadcasting/media most of my career and have made some tremendous contacts in athletics and among people who do this stuff for a living.
 
The money from the conferences is sometimes distributed among all sports, some sports or no sports. You're right about that. But if you're looking at total revenue, that can be easily found in the EADA reports separate from the institution filings under IPEDS.

But Silver didn't do that, did he? He used the OPE/DOE report and used only the college football revenue figure per the article.

Cheers,
Neil
 

Forum statistics

Threads
168,156
Messages
4,753,603
Members
5,943
Latest member
Diamondmakr

Online statistics

Members online
22
Guests online
579
Total visitors
601


Top Bottom