Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber
I'm going to be a jerk here because I tried to read this and had to stop 5 paragraphs in because I was sick of seeing horrific misspellings. Please tell me you didn't actually turn it in this way? It could have been interesting but the lack of attention to detail (by which I mean running spell check) undermines any points you make with your analysis.
|
I have to agree. Most/all of them could have been picked up with spell check, and they render the otherwise interesting paper difficult to read at best.
I did, however, read the whole thing, and I like the analysis you tried to do, although removing a few numbers to make the data look good is a little sketchy. When asking how many mentors each team had, you should have specified exactly what "mentor" meant, instead of removing a few cases that seemed to be outliers.
I'm actually quite surprised that according to your data, budget had no correlation with OPR, considering team budgets tend to increase as teams need to advance to higher levels of competition, therefore a team that was good enough to qualify for championship would have a larger budget.