Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rick TYler
Statistics are funny things...
It's interesting that your data seem to show a positive slope on the team number vs scoring curve, but I suspect it is either the law of small numbers (the sample is not statistically significant), or it is a meaningless coincidence.
|
The very high and very low numbers on that will not be very significant, since it is rare to randomly choose 3 teams that all have very low and very high numbers. Once you get to the 300s from the low side and 1700s from the high side though, you're talking about more than 20 matches and the trend is probably valid. Keep in mind it is average: any team with an average # of 300 is still composed of three teams in the 0-750 range, which still means that it has experienced teams on it. If you plot simply team # versus scores, the trend is much less evident. See the statistics, week 1 thread for that.
Quote:
|
I personally think that money is the big dividing factor. However, within the money category, an interesting statisitic, abeit probably harder to gather, would be the source of the big money. How much comes from one "deep pockets" sponsor? How much additional support; ie machining, paid support, etc; does the sponsor supply? How do the NASA "house" teams fare compared to other teams?
|
One way I thought of measuring sponsorship was to graph length of team name versus scores achieved, but it probably wouldn't show much. A team that's like "noname store 1 and noname store 2 and town of somewhere and a high school with a really long name" probably wouldn't fare better than "Google and Short HS". Likewise, a team with many large sponsors would have a longer name than a team that just scrapes by with a single short sponsor. I think the # of regionals a team attends is a pretty good proxy for how much money they have.
As for age stuff, I just grabbed it now off of First Wiki. I had to make some guessing for newer teams, but this should be mostly accurate. See attachments for 'age versus score'. Like the average team # chart, there are very few samples for the extremely young alliances and very old alliances.