Fan Satisfaction Index: Week 3 Results

Fan Satisfaction Index: Week 3 Results

Submitted by OneFootIn on September 20th, 2017 at 10:17 AM

This week’s survey – based on 311 respondents – brings mixed results. Regarding the game itself, respondents felt very similar to the way they felt after the Cincinnati game. Fans rated their satisfaction just a tick higher this week than last, with an average index of 62.7 compared to 59.9 after last week’s game. The distribution of responses was also quite similar.

 

Figure One. Air Force Feelings

This first result isn’t too surprising: the Air Force script followed the Cincinnati script pretty closely. Both weeks featured a somewhat lackluster win at home over a team Michigan was heavily favored to beat. Both games saw the defense delight while the offense sputtered.

The only mini surprise to me was that the overall rating of the game was slightly higher, rather than slightly lower. In my living room discussions after the Air Force game the consensus was that yes, logically Air Force was a better team and we should feel somewhat better about the outcome than last week, but emotionally, the fact that the offense stunk for a second week in a row was disappointing enough to make us feel worse about things. Evidently, however, for most people the defense’s confident takedown of the dreaded triple option, Donovan Peoples-Jones’ punt return for a touchdown, and the #NordinForHeisman hype train provided just enough buoyancy for them to rate the game a bit more favorably than last week’s.

Nonetheless, there is clear evidence that last Saturday’s showing has people concerned. As Figure Two shows, people’s satisfaction with the season took a dip from last week. The average season satisfaction rating was 72.6, down from 77.2 last week. My guess is that the team’s performance against Cincinnati and Air Force has put a serious damper on any irrational exuberance people may have felt in the wake of the Florida game. There is no reason to believe that the seasonal index can’t turn around, but another game at Purdue like this one and my guess is the index will sink quite a bit (i.e. a lot) lower.

 

Figure Two: Feelings about the 2017 Season (for now)

 

Themes, Thoughts, and Trends

Some Like It Hot

Like last week, feelings appeared to run both hotter and colder on Sunday, and satisfaction with the game rose a bit in the cool light of the work week, though not quite as much (from 61.6 on Sunday to 63.5 on Mon/Tues/Weds). Unlike last week, however, there was no post-weekend bounce in seasonal satisfaction, which averaged 72.9 on Sunday and 72.3 on Mon/Tues/Weds.

 

Half Full or Half Empty?

If you watch a lot of sports (which I assume you do), then you are familiar with two important fan stereotypes. First there’s the Optimist, who believes in St. Harbaugh and thinks Michigan will go undefeated every year regardless of what the Vegas lines might say. And then there’s the Pessimist, who imagines all the ways Michigan will find to fumble away games it should win and thinks Michigan will never beat Ohio State again.

Most of us probably fall somewhere in between, but how many of us? Thanks to the data, we can now provide a scientific answer. Let’s assume that seasonal satisfaction is a pretty reasonable measure of a person’s general optimism. At the beginning of the season, optimists should score higher than pessimists on the satisfaction index, of course, but we would also expect them to rate individual games more kindly, worry less about losses, and so on.

Assuming that optimism is partly responsible for how a person views each week’s game (i.e. half-full or half-empty), Figure 3 suggests that optimism (or pessimism) has a powerful impact indeed. The average game satisfaction rises from under 30 for those with the gloomiest take on the season to 80 for those with the rosiest take. For the stats geeks out there, the R-squared between the game and season ratings for the Air Force game was .48. Of course, it is also true that each week’s game influences how a person rates the season, but there’s only so much we can wring from the data at present. Over time it will be interesting to see how seasonal optimism holds up and how its influence on week-to-week satisfaction evolves.

Looked at another way, of the 311 respondents, 78% (244) rated their satisfaction with both the game and season over 50. A whopping 0 respondents – yes, 0 – rated both under 50, while 16% (50) are short-term pessimists but long-term optimists, rating the game under 50 but the season over 50. And 5% (17) are very strange (to me) folks who rated the game over 50 but the season under 50.

 

Figure Three: Optimists versus Pessmists

Is momentum in college football a thing? Who knows, but I do believe that fans ride an emotional roller coaster that sure as hell has momentum. Figure 4 provides our first sense of what that roller coaster looks like so far (though admittedly I just ball parked figures for Florida, having senselessly failed to post a survey the first week of the season – let me know in the comments if you think I’m wildly off on that one).

The seasonal satisfaction is the black line; the game ratings are the gray columns. The big question for this Saturday: does our roller coaster keep swinging down, or is this the week the offense puts it together and sends us rocketing back upwards?

 

Figure Four. Michigan Fan Satisfaction Trends, 2017 Season

 

OT - Football Brain Impact Vizualization and Article (New Technology) - NYTimes

OT - Football Brain Impact Vizualization and Article (New Technology) - NYTimes

Submitted by Everyone Murders on January 9th, 2017 at 4:44 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/09/sports/football/what-happened-within-this-players-skull-football-concussions.html

The NYTimes just published a fascinating article measuring the effects of football impacts to the head over the course of the game.  The visualization relating to a helmet-to-helmet hit is especially striking.

Definitely worth a look for those who worry about player safety and the future of the game.

In this chart, we show the G-force data from just 10 of the 62 hits this offensive lineman accrued in a single game. The average G-force, 25.8, is roughly equivalent to what we would see if the offensive lineman crashed his car into a wall going about 30 m.p.h.

The bioengineering here involves a mouthguard developed at Stanford which measures impacts in a unique fashion.  This is apparently a superior (although still somewhat imprecise) measure of impact compared with helmet sensors.

Anyway, a good read for those interested in the topic.

OT: The Magnus Effect

OT: The Magnus Effect

Submitted by denverblue on July 16th, 2015 at 3:18 PM

Psych! #sorrynotsorry

I thought this was a cool demonstration of the Magnus effect:

http://www.iflscience.com/physics/spinning-basketball-drops-and-swerves…

The video was pretty informative and worth checking out if you liked what you saw above:

https://youtu.be/2OSrvzNW9FE

Anyone who knows more about physics/alternative energy/general what-have-you please feel free to chime in!

EDIT: Evidently y'all are sensitive to the fact that things going viral get posted here. Besides which, science-y things get posted around here all the time. It's still the OT-season and I checked to make sure it hadn't already been posted. I found it to be some really cool science and thought I'd share it with like-minded folk. Plus, I wanted to see how Magnus responded and he did not dissapoint.

Who's the Problem? A Fanbase Perspective

Who's the Problem? A Fanbase Perspective

Submitted by Noleverine on October 28th, 2014 at 10:29 PM

I decided to move this to diaries since I put a little bit of work into it and it was already buried on the sidebar by the time I updated with results.. This is based on a survey a number of board members filled out earlier today.

I’d like to preface this with a warning: this is not intended to divide the fan base or claim that alums have more of a right to cheer for the team than anyone else. I simply had a hypothesis and decided to test it. I did not perform statistical analysis to determine validity. Obvious caveats of sample size, measurement technique, sampling procedures, etc. apply, but here it is:

My hypothesis was that those officially connected to the University (alums, employees, etc) would be more concerned with long-term damage to the program (and greater University as a whole) more than win/loss record, and thus would consider ousting Brandon the more pressing issue.

Caveats: (1) For people who indicated both Hoke and Brandon in their responses, I counted one towards each. Obviously this isn’t the best way to do it, but it was easier on me, so deal with it. (2)Also, I collapsed alums and employees together. For the sake of testing my hypothesis, they are effectively the same.

First, some demographics: 62% of respondents were associated with the University (student/alumnus, employee, etc.). 38% had no association to the University.

Of those associated with the University, 24% placed the majority of blame on Hoke. 86% placed the majority of the blame on Brandon (see caveat (1)). 3% said Hoke should be fired first, while almost 100% (see caveat (1)) said Brandon should be dealt with first.

Now for the fans: 43% said Hoke is to blame, and 56% said Brandon is primarily at fault. 18% said Hoke should be fired first, while 82% said Brandon should be fired first.

All caveats applying, it seems like my hypothesis was, to some extent, supported. It seems like those associated with the University harbor more ill-will towards the AD than the fanbase as a whole, while the fanbase is more willing to consider Hoke the problem, placing less blame on Brandon.

 

Take from it what you will, but I thought it was an interesting idea to look at. Just take it with a grain of salt.

SCIENCE: Michigan 2014 CFB champions

SCIENCE: Michigan 2014 CFB champions

Submitted by harmon40 on August 29th, 2014 at 8:18 PM

As we approach the 2014 season, there is a palpable sense of excitement mixed with uncertainty among the mgoblog faithful. The D seems to be all the way back and there are some tantalizing pieces on offense...and yet, can we bring ourselves to believe in love again after having been hurt so many times before? 

Take courage, my friends. This is not a year to sow. It is a year to reap.

SCIENCE says that Michigan will shock the world and win the first post-BCS era college football title this season and SCIENCE CAN NEVER LIE.

Consider the following parallels between this team and another team from our glorious past:

*The '14 team is not on anyone's radar as a potential national champion. Neither was the '97 team.

*The '14 is coming off 5 and 6 loss seasons.  The '97 team was coming off consecutive 4 loss seasons.

*The '14 team finished 5th in the Leaders Division.  The '97 team finished 5th in the Big Ten.

*The '14 team is coming off bowl losses in consecutive seasons, to teams from the SEC (South Carolina) and Big 12 (Kansas State).  The '97 team was also coming off bowl losses in consecutive years, to teams from the Big 12 (Texas A&M) and SEC (Alabama).

*The '14 team has a lot of questions on OL - as did the '97 team, on which the OL featured 1 returning starter and two converted DL.

*The '14 team starts a 5th year senior QB. The '97 team also started a 5th year senior QB.

*The '97 team had a functional, good-enough offense and an aggressive, overwhelming defense that blitzed from everywhere. The '14 team looks like it could be shaping up in an eerily similar way.

*The '97 season opener featured a return visit to Michigan Stadium by Colorado, a bad-memory team that on its previous trip had inflicted upon Michigan and its fans one of their most devastating losses ever. The game turned out to be 1) a blowout Michigan win, 2) a coming-out party for Charles Woodson & Co., and 3) something of an exorcism.  The '14 season opener vs App State offers the possibility of history repeating itself on all three points.

But here is where it gets really interesting...

*Lloyd Carr, the '97 HC, had been the DB's coach and then DC at Michigan under Bo, one of the best coaches in school history.  Brady Hoke, the '14 HC, was the DL coach at Michigan under Lloyd Carr, also one of the best coaches in school history.

*The '97 QB, Brian Griese, wore the number 14, CLEARLY pointing ahead to the glory of the '14 team.  The '14 QB, Devin Gardner, wears the number 98, MORE THAN CLEARLY pointing back to the glory of the '97 team, which played in the '98 Rose Bowl.  Also, importantly: add the digits of Gardner's number and what do you get? 17 - the number of years that have passed since the '97 season.

COULD IT ALL BE JUST A SERIES OF UNCONNECTED COINCIDENCES?

I don't think so. 

Not when you take into account the last and most pertinent piece of information, which binds it all together:

The '97 team's national title was the last of the pre-BCS era. This year's national title winner will be the first of the post-BCS era.  That's right: we are looking at the opportunity for Michigan to have "bookend" national titles on either side of the BCS era.

My friends, I know how unlikely it all may seem at this moment. However I have personally looked at the data from every possible angle again and again, and it comes out the same way every time: as improbable as it may appear to be, SCIENCE seems to indicate that there is glory in store for Michigan football in 2014.

And remember...SCIENCE CAN NEVER LIE.

GO BLUE!

 

 

OT: Solar Roadways

OT: Solar Roadways

Submitted by Michigan Arrogance on May 24th, 2014 at 7:32 AM

Want to get excited about something and forget that softball game? This should do the trick if you have any inclination toward eco-friendly science, engineering and/or technology. This "mom & pop" company has been researching solar cell-embedded roadways: but not just that: they are heated (no now removal), have leds (no painting lines), pressure sensors to detect objects on the road and can direct & filter storm water run off.

Pretty exciting IMO, but they don't have quotes for installation per hex-cell or per mile. I'm not positive about this, but highways cost approx. $1M/mile and I'd have to think these would be cost prohibitive. However, not needing snow removal, paint and of course the electricity generation could defray that cost, in addition to the economy of scale production effeciency should these explode. I'd love to hear the engineers on the board chime in here.

They are crowd souring this to avoid investor influence that may push production and manufacturing overseas b/c 'Merica! Link & Video:

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/solar-roadways

 

 

OT: Thoughts on Cosmos with Neil deGrasse Tyson

OT: Thoughts on Cosmos with Neil deGrasse Tyson

Submitted by The Geek on March 10th, 2014 at 1:33 PM

I remember watching the original Cosmos starring Carl Sagan when I was a kid. My family watched the "new" Cosmos last night, with Neil deGrasse Tyson. Although there were a few cheesy moments (e.g., "look at that asteroid... No, not that one... The one on the left"), overall I thought it was very interesting.

I can say this, my 17 and 13 year-old boys, and my 10 year-old daughter were absolutely riveted. There aren't many shows on prime-time TV that we can watch together, and enjoy healthy dialogue.

Knowing the education level on this board is a bit higher than others, I was wondering if any MGoBloggers watched, and if they liked it, or disliked it. Thoughts?

P.S. Please bear in mind the "no religion" tenet of this board... Thoughtful, tasteful dialogue is the goal.

OT - Is this how you build space colonies?

OT - Is this how you build space colonies?

Submitted by Blazefire on April 23rd, 2013 at 12:31 AM

I thought this was a really neat article that might pique interest around here during the dreary dregs of the all-sports off-season.

Applications now being accepted for a one way trip to Mars.

On the face of it, it seems utterly ridiculous. But then, when I think about it, I can't help but wonder if this isn't how mann takes his first steps outside of the earth/moon system? Not with some amazing new technology for fast transport, but rather, with people who fully intend to live out their entire lives at thei destination.

Aside from horrible fatalists and the psychotic, who clearly cannot be allowed to go on such a mission, anyone who agrees to travel one way to another planet is going to require a plan for them to survive once they arrive. "I'd be happy to live out my life on Mars, but I want to live longer than the few months that the water and food supplies will last." so, meet that requirement, and now you've got people living on another world growing their own food, purifying their own water, generating their own oxygen (likely all wthin the same aquaculture facility), who are prepared for the long term.

What do people who are in one place for a long time like to do? Expand! Open up new spaces. Study new things. Build a summer home! And in little time, with a few supply missions from Earth, you've got the equivalent of Martian industry allowing the people that live there to do more than live, but to grow. To procreate, expand their facilities, terraform the soil and create a new human frontier.

It had never really occured to me before that the first steps of human expansion could be both permanent relocations AND not metaphorical one-way trips (meaning you're going there to die). I absolutely love the idea of people traveling within our star system, never to return to earth, not to die, but to LIVE.

Tell me this isn't cool.