Round of 64 Recap: Duke-Mercer dominates Twitter, Even BEFORE Tip-Off

The NCAA Men’s Basketball tournament is now down to 32 teams, after the conclusion of the Tulsa-UCLA game last night.  As part of the Goizeuta Bracket Buzz contest, we were tasked to determine which of the 32 matchups in the Round of 64 would produce the most pre-game “buzz” on Twitter.  Essentially, we looked at the 24 hour period before tip-off, and collected all tweets that mentioned either team or the match-up in that period.  The Duke-Mercer matchup dominated the other 31 games in terms of pre-game buzz.  This was before Mercer “shocked the world” in an upset that even lead CNN to make the story “Breaking News” on their website (taking headlines away from the plane search story for a few brief minutes).  The pre-game tweets about the Duke-Mercer matchup focused primarily on Duke, specifically on Jabari Parker, Coach K, and final four picks.  The tweets were from all over the country, manifesting that Duke is a powerful national basketball brand.  The chart below shows the pre-game buzz for all 32 matchups (it has been indexed with Duke-Mercer as 100).

Pre-Game Buzz NCAA 64

The Kansas-Eastern Kentucky matchup had the second most pre-game buzz.  Many tweets focused on Andrew Wiggins and the health of other players.  A closer examination of the Duke-Mercer matchup yields some interesting insights.  First, even though Mercer won the game, the majority of the Twitter conversation both during the game and afterwards was about Duke.  The chart below shows the percentage of the Twitter conversation around the matchup that was attributed to each team before the game (24 hours), during the game, and after the game (18 hours).

Duke-Mercer Twittter Conv

Finally, we can also examine the sentiment of the tweets (positive, negative, and neutral).  Shockingly, Duke had a lower positive/negative tweet ratio than Mercer.  A lot of the negative tweets around Mercer, especially after the game, were about how Mercer had “crushed” or “destroyed” people’s brackets.

PosNegDukeMercer

Now, it’s on to the Round of 32 – we will be reviewing those games on Monday.  See if you can predict which matchup will have the highest pre-game buzz!

Mike Lewis & Manish Tripathi, Emory University 2014.

The “Best” Football Fan Bases in the ACC

We are presenting a series ranking the “best” fan bases in college football.  The study uses data from the past ten years and the rankings are based on Revenue Premium Brand Equity.  For more information on the analysis/methodology, please click here.

While the ACC is best known as a basketball conference, the economics of college sports are primarily driven by football.  So, who in this “basketball” conference has the most loyal and supportive football fans?

Number one on the list are the Clemson Tigers.  In the past decade, Clemson has had very good attendance and revenues in comparison to what would be expected from a team then tends to be just above average on the field.  Clemson’s revenues are especially good given that they operate in the ACC (and lack the revenues from being part of the Big Ten network or an SEC television contract).  In comparison to other major ACC programs, Clemson has revenues that are in the range of 30%-60% higher.  Second on the list are the Virginia Tech Hokies.  Virginia Tech has revenues that are very similar to Clemson, but the Hokies have been significantly more successful on the field.  As a reminder, our approach controls for team quality when assessing fan support (it’s easy to be an Alabama fan but it takes character to be a Duke Football fan).

In third and fifth place, we have two new entrants to the conference.  Syracuse is ranked third, and Pitt comes in ranked fifth.  Syracuse finishes relatively high because their fans continue to support a team that has often struggled over the past decade. The high rank of these two entrants suggests that the ACC making very good expansion decisions.

The two Florida schools are interesting cases.  Prior to running the numbers, we would have thought that Miami and FSU would have been the leaders of the conference.  The issue is that despite the success these programs have experienced on the field, their revenues are not exceptional.  For example, Miami invests a great deal in their program, almost always participates in bowl games (and many major bowls), but attendance is regularly far short of capacity.

The University of Maryland being near the bottom of the rankings is another remarkable story.  The new entrants (Syracuse & Pitt) seem to be better football schools than Maryland, so by some measures the ACC has been a realignment winner.  On the other hand, the Big Ten wants Maryland (and Rutgers) not so much for the schools’ current fan bases but for the schools’ locations in major media markets.

Mike Lewis & Manish Tripathi, Emory University 2013.

PREVIOUS: RANKING THE BEST OF THE NON-BCS CONFERENCES

COMING SOON: RANKING THE AAC

Purdue & Illinois Best at Converting Talent into NBA Draft Picks: Ranking the Big 10

We spend a lot of time on the site talking about statistical models.  Statistical models are great for identifying trends and relationships between variables when we have a significant amount of data.  Models are also useful for moving us beyond arguments based on examples and anecdotes.  We think this is particularly important when discussing sports.  Every guy in every bar has a theory that they can support with an example.

In our current series on college basketball programs’ abilities to convert recruits into NBA draft picks, we have decided to start with summary data for each school.  We plan on concluding the series with a statistical model that predicts the likelihood of a player being drafted based on the player’s recruiting ranking, the school’s investment in the program, the rankings of the player’s teammates and other factors. We decided to start with the summary efficiency rankings simply because these rankings are more accessible to fans and tend to generate more conversation.

I wanted to use today’s rankings of the Big Ten schools as an excuse to delve into a specific comparison between two schools.  I have two reasons for this.  The first is that looking at the data for a couple of schools will highlight why our statistical model gives the results it does.  The other reason is that I (Lewis) want to provide some recruiting material for my Illini.

The chart below lists our efficiency rankings for the Big Ten.  At the top, we have two solid programs in Purdue and Illinois.  These two are followed by the recent and traditional powers: Ohio State, Indiana and Michigan State.  While Ohio State has the most draft picks, they also had the greatest recruiting success with players like Greg Oden, Mike Conley, BJ Mullens, and Jared Sullenger coming through Columbus in the last decade.

(For more details about the methodology, click here)

Now back to my second motive.  As an aside, I thought about titling this piece “Why Jabari Parker, Cliff Alexander and Jahlil Okafor Don’t Need to Travel Far from Home.”  In our rankings of the ACC, the Duke Blue Devils finished in the middle of the pack.  What I’d like to do (and I know this is self-indulgent) is to compare the Illini with Duke.  In the table below I give the rankings of members of Duke’s and Illinois’ recruiting classes from 2001 to 2002 (I collected these by hand so please excuse any omissions).

Over the relevant drafts, Duke had 11 players selected compared to 4 for Illinois.  While this may seem to be a reason for a student athlete to choose Duke, when we look at the input, things are much less clear.  From 2002 to 2010 Illinois had 1 top twenty recruit.  In contrast, Duke had 13.  If we look at top thirty recruits, Illinois still had 1 while Duke had 15.

I think the explanation for these results is pretty simple.  When an athlete chooses a school in a power conference, but without a roster loaded with McDonald’s All-Americans, that athlete has more chances to see the floor, and even when on the floor the athlete has a better chance to be the focal point for the offense.  Going all the way back to 2002, Dee Brown was a featured star at Illinois while the similarly rated Sean Dockery was a role player for Duke.  Another highly rated player from Illinois Michael Thompson ended up transferring from Duke to Northwestern.  And while some attrition is natural, it is interesting that Thompson was rated higher (30th) than every single Illinois recruit in the period from 2002 to 2010.

So what is the take away?  In terms of the preceding comparison, it is that what the glitz and glamour of playing at a high profile school is attractive, the high profile nature of a Duke is likely meaningless when it comes to getting to the next level.  In fact, the tendency of very highly rated players to choose schools like Duke means that the player’s chances of making the pros might actually be a bit less at a Duke than an Illinois.

But, as noted, the comparison of Duke and Illinois is anecdotal.  What we really need to reach the preceding conclusions is more data.  My comparison of Illinois and Duke is mainly intended to foreshadow the statistical analysis we will provide next week.  This analysis is designed to tease out the effects of player quality, within roster competition, school investment and on-court success on player development.

PREVIOUS POST: RANKING THE ACC

NEXT POST: RANKING THE PAC-12

Converting High School Talent into NBA Draft Picks: Ranking the ACC

The NBA Draft can be a time for college basketball fans to cheer about the “success” of their basketball program.  Kentucky, Duke, North Carolina, and Kansas fans can boast about the number of alums currently in the NBA.  This year, ESPN is taking that discussion one step farther by describing the quality of NBA players produced, and ranking the “NBA Pedigree” of colleges.

Our take is a bit different as we will examine the process of taking high school talent and converting it into NBA draft picks. In other words, we want to understand how efficient are colleges at transforming their available high school talent into NBA draft picks? Today, we launch our NBA draft series by ranking the schools in the ACC based on their ability to convert talent into draft picks.

The initial approach is fairly simple.  Each year, (almost) every basketball program has an incoming freshman class.  The players in the class have been evaluated by several national recruiting/ranking companies (e.g. Rivals, Scout, etc…).  In theory, these evaluations provide a measure of the player’s talent or quality*.  Each year, we also observe which players get drafted by the NBA.  Thus, we can measure conversion rates over time for each college.  Conversion rates may be indicative of the school’s ability to coach-up talent, to identify talent, or to invest in players.  These rates may also depend on the talent composition of all of the players on the team.  This last factor is particularly important from a recruiting standpoint.  Should players flock to places that other highly ranked players have selected?  Should they look for places where they have a higher probability of getting on the court quickly? Next week we will present a statistical analysis (logistic regression) that includes multiple factors (quality of other recruits, team winning rates, tournament success, investment in the basketball program, etc…). But for now we will just present simple statistics related to school’s ability to produce output (NBA draft picks) as a function of input (quality of recruits).

Our first set of rankings is for the ACC.  At the top of the list we have Boston College and Georgia Tech.  Boston College has done a good job of converting low-ranked talent into NBA picks (in this time period they had two three-star players and a non-rated player drafted).  Georgia Tech, on the other hand, has converted all of its five-star recruits, and several of its four-star recruits.  A result that may at first glance seem surprising is the placement of UNC and Duke.  However, upon reflection these results make a good deal of sense.  When players choose these “blue blood” programs they face stiff competition for playing time from both current and future teammates.

Here are some questions you probably have about our methodology:

What time period does this represent?

We examined recruiting classes from 2002 to 2011 (this represents the year of graduation from high school).  While the chart above ranks the ACC, we compiled data for over 300 Division 1 colleges (over 12,000 players).

How did you compute the conversion rate?

The conversion rate for each school is defined as (Sum of draft picks for the 2002-2011 recruiting classes)/(Weighted Recruiting Talent).  Weighted Recruiting Talent is determined by summing the recruiting “points” for each class.  These “points” are computed by weighting each recruit by the overall population average probability of being drafted for recruits at that corresponding talent level.  We are using ratings data from Rivals.com.  The weights for each “type” of recruit were 0.51 for each five star recruit, 0.13 for each four star, 0.03 for each three star, 0.008 for each two star, and 0.004 for each not ranked.  

Second-round picks often don’t even make the team.  What if you only considered first round picks?

We have also computed the rates using first round picks only, please see the table below.

NEXT: RANKING THE BIG 10

*We can already hear our friends at Duke explaining how players are rated more highly by services just because they are being recruited by Duke.  We acknowledge that it is very difficult to get a true measure of a high school player’s ability.  However, we also believe that over the last ten years, given all of the media exposure for high school athletes, this problem has attenuated.

Mike Lewis & Manish Tripathi, Emory University 2013.

The Best Fan Bases in the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC)

For Big Ten rankings and a note on our methodology please click here.

For PAC-12 rankings please click here.

Our series on the Best Fan Bases in college basketball continues with an examination of the Atlantic Coast Conference.  The Duke Blue Devils are on top, followed by the North Carolina Tar Heels and the Maryland Terrapins.  Boston College and Florida State are on the bottom of the rankings.  (Note: For additional information on our methodology, click here)

Duke and North Carolina are two of the most storied college basketball programs.  Both schools averaged over 25 wins a season during the 2001-2011 time period, and both schools had at least one national championship.  Both schools almost always sell out their home games.  One of the key differences between the schools is that Duke makes almost double per seat in revenue than North Carolina.

The bottom of the ACC rankings is full of “football” schools (Clemson, Virginia Tech, Boston College, and Florida State).  In the time period of our study, Florida State made the NCAA tournament three consecutive years, but still could never get above 80% in average attendance/capacity.  This is in a market (Tallahassee) with no professional teams, and where fans often sell out a stadium (Doak Campbell) that seats over 80,000.

Chris Collins headed to Northwestern, not Minnesota

Reports this morning have Chris Collins accepting the head coach position at Northwestern over the same position at Minnesota.  Based on our Big Ten Brand Equity Rankings, this seems to be a mistake.  Minnesota is ranked second in the Big 10, while Northwestern is ranked 8th.  Greater brand equity means higher fan loyalty and more revenue in the athletic department.  This money can be used for better facilities and for recruiting.  Chris Collins seems to be eschewing brand equity in order to return to his hometown.