Map Showing Popularity of College Basketball teams

[AfgHusky15]

This is a great map of Facebook calcualting the most popular basketball teams for each county in the US. The break it down using teams from the different regions of the bracket.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaab...gion-breaks-down-number-054303642--ncaab.html

major take aways:

- Duke and UNC are by far the most popular teams nationwide (its actually very impressive)

- Georgetown and Villanova have very little pull nationally and even in their own markets (DC & Philly); almost nothing really

- Indiana has a solid nationwide following, especially midwest (obviously), the west coast, and Florida (surprising)

- Syracuse has a very regional following and little to no following outside of NY, CT and VT (no surprise there).

- Gonzaga has a very strong following all over the West

- Ohio State has a strong following in ACC country (hmmm)

- UCLA has a very regional following in fact UNC carried around the same amount of counties as UCLA did in Cali, and UCLA carried no other counties outside of CA (kind of a surprise)

I really hope facebook does this again next year so we can see how much of a national following UConn has. I really think it would surprise people has to how broad of a following they have. Not saying its at UNC and Dukes level, but I think they are right below them.

 

[Adios]

Facebook will do it again next year. It is absolutely used for marketing. It's just whether they'll share the results. Can't believe how many fans are bandwagoners.

Oh, and so much for all that C7 talk.

 

[storrsroars]

Given the study's universe is Facebook users, all this tells me is that there is a high correlation between schools that ranked high on this "study" and people who like to waste time on Facebook.

Due to the way it's used, I'd find a Twitter analysis of hashtags more applicable for something like this.

 

[huskiesnyc]

Most of these studie are dependent on how good the team performs that year.

 

[businesslawyer]

One would have to be really, really dumb to write an article based on facebook "likes." Or to comment upon it on a bulletin board.

That methodology makes the one the New York Times blogger used when analyzing college football fanbases look like quantum physics.

 

[Hoophound]

One would have to be really, really dumb to write an article based on facebook "likes." Or to comment upon it on a bulletin board.

That methodology makes the one the New York Times blogger used when analyzing college football fanbases look like quantum physics.

Facebook is for old people. It is dead to people under 30. They've moved on.

 

[ZooCougar]

One would have to be really, really dumb to write an article based on facebook "likes." Or to comment upon it on a bulletin board.

That methodology makes the one the New York Times blogger used when analyzing college football fanbases look like quantum physics.

That blogger may have nailed the election, but he sure screwed up in measuring fan support.

 

[tzznandrew]

Facebook is for old people. It is dead to people under 30. They've moved on.

Eh. I'm under 30 and use it. Everyone I'm friends with is under 30 and uses it. My students I taught in High School up through last year are under 30 and they use it.

It's far from dead...

 

[Hoophound]

Eh. I'm under 30 and use it. Everyone I'm friends with is under 30 and uses it. My students I taught in High School up through last year are under 30 and they use it.

It's far from dead...

Nerds.