The Daily Editorial Page Doesn't Know Statistics.

I usually only skim the editorial page of the daily. It's almost as bad as daily arts, which gave The Dark Knight 4.5/5 stars and then called it the best movie ever. HOW DO YOU GET THE 5th STAR?

But the real reason I check out the editorial page is for the letters to the editors that I wish I had written like this one:

The Daily's story Tuesday about a student government effort to change intramural sports scoring (Students: IM scoring policy is sexist, 09/23/2008) is a prime example of why the majority of this campus takes our student government to be an absolute joke. Every year I am bombarded with candidates’ flyers promising me reduced textbook costs and increased campus safety. Instead of solving these problems, I read that some LSA Student Government representatives are labeling a "B” level intramural soccer scoring system as an “urgent” issue concerning our student body.

If the LSA-SG represntatives behind this, Steven Benson and Kim Buddin, have such an issue with the scoring, they should play in the “A” league and quit wasting our time. Is this what our student government really debates behind closed doors? With the recent rash of burglaries across campus and continually increasing tuition costs, shouldn’t they be focusing their efforts elsewhere?

Perhaps I should run during the next election. My platform would consist of free unicorn rides to North Campus and orange soda in every drinking fountain on campus. In the end, I would fulfill just as many promises as the current student government does.

Alex Whang
LSA senior

That was in response to MSA spending almost an entire meeting talking about how it's sexist that women get 2 points for scoring a goal in B level IM soccer. That's why I enjoy watching MSA waste time. But then again, no one ever voted for Mr. Russell.

The one editorial that really stood to point out how inept the daily is was the one about stadium accessibility. I feel I must respond. For those who didn't read it, the premise was that the University's was wrong in its belief that it wouldn't be able to sell enough handicapped seats at football games. The Daily argued that because the University sold a vast majority of the seats this year "administrators should have every reason to believe that tickets for the rest of the wheelchair-accessible seats will sell well when the renovations are complete."

Now for some background, the U increased the number of handicapped seats from 92 to 184 this year. The article stated that it sold between 74 to 89 percent of these seats. So that breaks down to 136 seats at the season low, and 164 in the season high. So my question is, if they are at the maximum selling only 164 seats, what makes the Daily think that the U will sell the 329 handicapped seats that agreed to provide in the future. I don't know the individual numbers but even at the most extreme values it is in the tens of standard deviations that they will sell all 329 handicapped seats. Also, it could be noted the the number of Americans in wheelchairs is decreasing, and the population of the state of Michigan is also decreasing. Sure it was a rough year, but the proportion of people who come to games in wheelchairs isn't going to magically double with a few more wins. The Daily writers should be able to figure this out.

Now for the fun part.

So, 2 years from now there will 329 handicapped seats in the stadium, and I approximate that they will only be selling 180 a game (high estimate). So that leaves 165 unattended seats a game. Each one of those handicapped seats takes up about 12 regular seats (call Sam and confirm). So what does that add up to? 1,980 fans won't be able to watch each game in the big house. Which will be about 15,840 people a season. Those 15,840 fans would have paid about $50 a ticket, so now the settlement will end up costing the Athletic Department $792,000 a season. That's some serious money. But maybe they deserve it for trying to get away with calling what they are doing a repair not a renovation, which was just dumb.

What they should have done is used basic forecasting to estimate the number of Handicapped tickets they would expect to sell, and then made enough to fullfill a large service rate. Then each game they could make enough handicapped seats to fulfill handicapped seating 95% of the time, and turned the rest of the space into temp seating. Instead they just cleared out rows of the stadium and are praying that exactly 329 people in wheelchairs want to watch a Michigan Football game.

Instead of criticizing the Athletic Department, The Daily should have realized that the Athletic Department was right, and there is no possible way they will fill all of those seats. Then The Daily should have done some sleuthing and found what the actual numbers were and found out just how unlikely it would be for them to sell those seats given current demand rates. Next they should have realized how this settlement will negatively affect a large number of fans. Next, they should have offered a solution to the problem. Instead, they said, "Accessibility Sells!" the University is dumb, lets make sure we include everyone, even if it means that we can't include 1,980 other people.


As a side note, one thing that no one ever seems to mention is that the Stadium is still not up the ADA standards. All we have done is simply settled out of court with the only group to ever sue us. I don't think that sets a precedent, seeing as we are still in violation of the law. Not to give anyone ideas, but if I was a PSU fan and I had the money, I would sue the shit out Michigan to get the title of largest stadium in America. Just a thought, lawyer friends care to weigh in?

Also today the Daily ran a lengthy editorial defending Furries. What type of crap newspaper is this?