Let me see if I can get your attention. What might fans of the Chicago Cubs and the Tennessee Volunteers have in common? To restate this question another way, what if our rabid and largely stable fan base actually has disincentivized the Tennessee Athletic Department from making good decisions over the past decade? More on that later.
As I begin to write this, I know that the vast majority of those reading will end right about here. Many of those will go on to put something along the lines of "too long, didn't read" or "nerd" or whatever else. That's fine, but for those of you who continue on, who like to parse and understand the data driving the things you love, and be challenged in your position, please continue reading.
Many of my posts on this site have been about the numerical impact of talent on the outcome of football games. There are generally two distinct conclusions that I have drawn from the data. The first is that talent is the major contributor to about 70% of the wins on the field, and the second is that coaching is one of the most over-valued aspects of a team's success (only part of the remaining 30% can be attributed to coaching). These findings rocked my world.
In that vein, I tend to be attracted to information that is more informative as opposed to speculative. Sadly, so much of the information that sports enthusiasts are given is the latter and not the former. If you read message boards, listen to sports talk, or even watch games, you are pelted with traditional views, that are largely nonsense.
If you have read Freakonomics or perhaps even Moneyball (watching either movie doesn't really count), you will love this book I just finished reading (and my sincerest apologies if this has been brought up previously).
Written and researched by economists, who also love sports, the information in this book truly pulls the veil back on many modern day fan-fictions. Here, in no particular order, is an non-exhaustive list of some of the topics covered.
First: Is defense really the key to championships? Nope, as intuitive as it is to say, offense is just as important, if not more so, in every major sport.
Second: Is home field advantage due to crowd enthusiasm and support? Nope, not in the way most fans think.
Third: Does icing the kicker work? Nope.
Fourth: Is punting really as valuable as modern coaching and fan perception would lead you to believe? Nope. In fact, going for it on 4th down (outside of a few exceptions) is a far better statistical option if you want to actually win a game, than kicking a punt or a field goal.
Now, back to the Cubs v. Volunteers question from the beginning. Buried deep in the last chapter is the revelation that for most teams, wins and losses effect fan attendance at games. Fan attendance directly equates to income. Income, if turned back into the team, directly equates to wins (those who tend to spend more, tend to have more success). So, for most teams, keeping a quality product on the field is the way to generate income. Or to put it another way, if you want to make money, put a quality product on the field, and the fans will come and you will make more money. Except for the Chicago Cubs.
For whatever reason, the Cubs have spent years of being mediocre and the fans still buy over 90% of the seats thus insulating the team from the impact of mediocrity while removing any incentive for the management to invest more money to assure a winning team.
For any of you who believe that UT doesn't spend money to make quality coaching hires (disregard the fact that I actually believe coaches are worth far less than what they currently command on the market due to their impact on the outcome of most games being far inferior to talent) do you think that it could possibly be because our fans tend to be incredibly loyal? When have we ever seen Neyland at 15% attendance, or even 50% for that matter? As a hypothetical question, could it be that our fans actually allow the AD, or any of those who are in charge, to make decisions that could actually make Tennessee less competitive over the long run?
So it seems that the bottom line might be that if you want a more competitive team, ride a bandwagon.
Food for thought and a great book.
Now, own to my next project...
As I begin to write this, I know that the vast majority of those reading will end right about here. Many of those will go on to put something along the lines of "too long, didn't read" or "nerd" or whatever else. That's fine, but for those of you who continue on, who like to parse and understand the data driving the things you love, and be challenged in your position, please continue reading.
Many of my posts on this site have been about the numerical impact of talent on the outcome of football games. There are generally two distinct conclusions that I have drawn from the data. The first is that talent is the major contributor to about 70% of the wins on the field, and the second is that coaching is one of the most over-valued aspects of a team's success (only part of the remaining 30% can be attributed to coaching). These findings rocked my world.
In that vein, I tend to be attracted to information that is more informative as opposed to speculative. Sadly, so much of the information that sports enthusiasts are given is the latter and not the former. If you read message boards, listen to sports talk, or even watch games, you are pelted with traditional views, that are largely nonsense.
If you have read Freakonomics or perhaps even Moneyball (watching either movie doesn't really count), you will love this book I just finished reading (and my sincerest apologies if this has been brought up previously).
Written and researched by economists, who also love sports, the information in this book truly pulls the veil back on many modern day fan-fictions. Here, in no particular order, is an non-exhaustive list of some of the topics covered.
First: Is defense really the key to championships? Nope, as intuitive as it is to say, offense is just as important, if not more so, in every major sport.
Second: Is home field advantage due to crowd enthusiasm and support? Nope, not in the way most fans think.
Third: Does icing the kicker work? Nope.
Fourth: Is punting really as valuable as modern coaching and fan perception would lead you to believe? Nope. In fact, going for it on 4th down (outside of a few exceptions) is a far better statistical option if you want to actually win a game, than kicking a punt or a field goal.
Now, back to the Cubs v. Volunteers question from the beginning. Buried deep in the last chapter is the revelation that for most teams, wins and losses effect fan attendance at games. Fan attendance directly equates to income. Income, if turned back into the team, directly equates to wins (those who tend to spend more, tend to have more success). So, for most teams, keeping a quality product on the field is the way to generate income. Or to put it another way, if you want to make money, put a quality product on the field, and the fans will come and you will make more money. Except for the Chicago Cubs.
For whatever reason, the Cubs have spent years of being mediocre and the fans still buy over 90% of the seats thus insulating the team from the impact of mediocrity while removing any incentive for the management to invest more money to assure a winning team.
For any of you who believe that UT doesn't spend money to make quality coaching hires (disregard the fact that I actually believe coaches are worth far less than what they currently command on the market due to their impact on the outcome of most games being far inferior to talent) do you think that it could possibly be because our fans tend to be incredibly loyal? When have we ever seen Neyland at 15% attendance, or even 50% for that matter? As a hypothetical question, could it be that our fans actually allow the AD, or any of those who are in charge, to make decisions that could actually make Tennessee less competitive over the long run?
So it seems that the bottom line might be that if you want a more competitive team, ride a bandwagon.
Food for thought and a great book.
Now, own to my next project...
Last edited: