03-18-2018, 03:59 PM
WalletHub ranked the "Best Cities for College Basketball"
https://wallethub.com/edu/best-cities-fo...all/32944/
I have issues with their methodology, I'd like to hear others' thoughts on this as well. Are the results what you'd expect?
I will say it is interesting to see where the city your team is from ends up. How'd y'all fare?
x-post from http://www.umasshoops.com/newboard/viewt...1&p=471763
I think I have to question this list's "basketball cities". Cullowhee, NC (home of Western Carolina) is #15 overall? West Point is #22? I can tell you right now basketball does not steer the ship at Army. From what I know there is little interest among most cadets and old grads.
Just as a general rule of thumb: when doing analysis on city performance like this it's best to use statistics on the metropolitan area or at least the county level. Using the "city" level can skew things because instead of looking at where people live, work, shop, and their general behavior you're looking how local governments designate areas.
Some criticism of their methodology:
https://wallethub.com/edu/best-cities-fo...all/32944/
I have issues with their methodology, I'd like to hear others' thoughts on this as well. Are the results what you'd expect?
I will say it is interesting to see where the city your team is from ends up. How'd y'all fare?
x-post from http://www.umasshoops.com/newboard/viewt...1&p=471763
inthescoop Wrote:Since it’s the offseason, I’ll start a new thread for it, to boost up the discussions here.
https://wallethub.com/edu/best-cities-f ... all/32944/
Amherst is ranked 86th nationally, and 46th among small cities.
I think I have to question this list's "basketball cities". Cullowhee, NC (home of Western Carolina) is #15 overall? West Point is #22? I can tell you right now basketball does not steer the ship at Army. From what I know there is little interest among most cadets and old grads.
Just as a general rule of thumb: when doing analysis on city performance like this it's best to use statistics on the metropolitan area or at least the county level. Using the "city" level can skew things because instead of looking at where people live, work, shop, and their general behavior you're looking how local governments designate areas.
Some criticism of their methodology:
Quote:Number of College Basketball (Division 1) Teams: Full Weight (~14.29 Points)The impact of multiple teams in one region should already be accounted for by the other metrics. Further, does this matter? Is a city really better if it has five awful to mediocre teams versus one dominant national player?
Quote:Performance Level of College Basketball (Division 1) Team(s): Full Weight (~14.29 Points)Why is this indicative of performance? Yes wins matter, but a win in the Atlantic Sun Conference is different from a win in the Atlantic Ten Conference is different from a win in the Atlantic Coast Conference.
Note: This metric was calculated by dividing “Number of Wins” by “Total Games Played” and using the past three seasons’ averages.
Quote:Number of Basketball (Division 1) Championship Wins: Full Weight (~14.29 Points)National Championship? Conference Championship (see previous note)? What are we talking here? And there should be some weighting by time. UCLA was dominant in the '70s but should those wins have the same impact on Los Angeles as UConn's wins from the 2000s have on Hartford? This goes back to my comment on metro areas. Why does UCLA impact Los Angeles instead of Westwood while UConn impacts Storrs instead of Hartford? There's always going to be major differences in region land area and population, but using MSAs helps to normalize this so that we're examining the bigger picture instead of a brush stroke.
Quote:Number of College Basketball (Division 1) Regular Season Championship Wins: Half Weight (~7.14 Points)See previous two notes.
Quote:Number of National Collegiate Basketball Hall of Fame Head Coaches: Full Weight (~14.29 Points)Is the coach still at the school? I'd say Calipari has a greater influence as a HOF coach at Kentucky in 2018 than he does on the performance at Massachusetts.
Quote:Minimum College Basketball (Division 1) Season Ticket Price: Half Weight (~7.14 Points)I understand this is trying to measure demand. However I doubt it accounts for the cost index between different metro areas. Even if it did, wouldn't total revenue from basketball be a better metric? Why not account for TV revenue, sponsorships, merchandise, single-game tickets, etc. too?
Quote:College-Basketball Fans Engagement: Sesqui-Weight (~21.43 Points)Unfortunately this doesn't account for older fanbases who might be just as engaged as younger fanbases, but I'd assume less likely to use Twitter and Facebook. Again, the per capita is weird, it's the metro area versus city argument. The other factor this doesn't account for is bandwagon likes. How many folks "liked" UNC on Facebook after the 2017 National Championship game, but have no intention of purchasing tickets or donating to the program?
Note: This metric was calculated by adding “Number of Twitter Followers” and “Number of Facebook ‘Likes’ per Capita.”
Quote:Number of Coaches in Past 10 Seasons: Quarter Weight (~3.57 Points)Why is this indicative of a good program? There's programs like VCU who have had four coaches in the past decade, but have been to the NCAAT eight of those years. There's programs like Lafayette who have had the same coach for 23 years and only made NCAAT three times in that tenure (including a 14 year drought) and only once in the past decade.
Note: “Past 10 Seasons” include seasons 2007–2008 to 2016–2017.
Quote:College-Basketball Stadium Capacity: Quarter Weight (~3.57 Points)Again see my note on metro areas. Also, isn't attendance more important than capacity? What about a program like Robert Morris who plays in PPG Paints Arena (19,100) but as an NEC team they struggle to regularly draw 1,000 people (averaging 766 per game in 2017-18).
Note: This metric was calculated by dividing “Stadium Capacity” by “City Population.”