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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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 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
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.
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.![]()
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.![]()
To be fair though Neil, those posters are definitely jerks.
![]()
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.