Vols 6th in attendance

[Chris4Vols22]

False. There is correlation between attendance and arena capacity. There is a positive relationship between the two variables. Those teams leading in attendance have bigger arenas. Just plot the top 20 in both and you will clearly see that. There is NOT causation. A bigger arena doesn't cause higher attendance (causation), but the two are related (correlation). If you are going to use statistics, please use it correctly.:thumbsup:

What? That's what I just said, ya dingus.

 

[zansdad]

False. There is correlation between attendance and arena capacity. There is a positive relationship between the two variables. Those teams leading in attendance have bigger arenas. Just plot the top 20 in both and you will clearly see that. There is NOT causation. A bigger arena doesn't cause higher attendance (causation), but the two are related (correlation). If you are going to use statistics, please use it correctly.:thumbsup:

Your info

--------here-------​

Heads of most people on this board

--------here--------​

.

But I'm with you...I think. :loco::loco:

 

[Chris4Vols22]

By my count, we're 5th largest in capacity. 6th highest attendance.

Correlation? None.

Still, it takes a great fanbase to fill it up.

Do you mean causation?

No, he meant correlation.

False. There is correlation between attendance and arena capacity. There is a positive relationship between the two variables. Those teams leading in attendance have bigger arenas. Just plot the top 20 in both and you will clearly see that. There is NOT causation. A bigger arena doesn't cause higher attendance (causation), but the two are related (correlation). If you are going to use statistics, please use it correctly.:thumbsup:

Why the f*** is bmj4life trying to correct me??

 

[zansdad]

Why the f*** is bmj4life trying to correct me??

Just my opinion.


Because the original poster used the term correlation when he should have apparently used the term causation. Apparently you then stated that correlation was the correct term (at least it looks like that's what you meant). And he felt it necessary to correct you too.

eace2:

 

[Chris4Vols22]

Just my opinion.


Because the original poster used the term correlation when he should have apparently used the term causation. Apparently you then stated that correlation was the correct term (at least it looks like that's what you meant). And he felt it necessary to correct you too.

eace2:

Yes, correlation is the correct term to use, and the guy that tried to correct me was acting like I said causation. Read the guy's post that you just quoted.

He's saying, "NO! It's CORRELATION!"

And I'm like..."I just said that."

 

[Chris4Vols22]

Someone please tell me I'm not crazy!! Why!?!?!?!

 

[Chris4Vols22]

I see now. This is how I read Thrasher's post:

By my count, we're 5th largest in capacity. 6th highest attendance.

[sarcasm]Correlation? None.[/sarcasm]

So, if were being sarcastic, he would be saying that there is a correlation. But he was not being sarcastic, and he meant to say "causation."

GOTCHA.

 

[zansdad]

Yes, correlation is the correct term to use, and the guy that tried to correct me was acting like I said causation. Read the guy's post that you just quoted.

He's saying, "NO! It's CORRELATION!"

And I'm like..."I just said that."

NM

 

[Chris4Vols22]

Just figured it out. VN sarcasm filter was on full blast.

 

[zansdad]

Just figured it out. VN sarcasm filter was on full blast.

That's probably the best setting for it anyway in most instances.