Download the data here. I think that's it, but if I missed a requirement, let me know and I'll update this post. Good luck!

What doesn't work well?

• It makes no sense whatsoever to add up the seeds.
• There is no consistency in the coloring of the bars.
• The text call out in the middle has nothing to do with the chart.
• It's way too busy.
• I have to rotate my head sideways to read the years.

For my view, I wanted to focus on the upsets because that's what makes the NCAA Tournament so exciting! Cinderella can make it to the ball and often does. I went with American Typewriter for the font to make it look more like a newspaper headline. The regions are ordered geographically (thanks for the feedback Eva).

Saturday Down South, which focuses almost exclusively on Southeastern Conference (SEC) football, posted an article back in January about the size of SEC football stadiums. In the article, they have a great line:

The conference’s stadiums are some of the biggest in the world, representing four of the top 10 and seven of the Top 25, many in towns that more than double in population on game days.

They wrap up the article with this basic table:

WORLD’S LARGEST STADIUMS RANKED BY CAPACITY

1. Rungrado May Day Stadium (Pyongyang, North Korea): 150,000
2. Salt Lake Stadium (Kolkata, India): 120,000
3. Michigan Stadium (Ann Arbor, Mich.): 109,901
4. Beaver Stadium (State College, Pa.): 107,282
5. Kyle Field (College Station, Texas): 106,511*
6. Estadio Azteca (Mexico City, Mexico): 105,000
7. Ohio Stadium (Columbus, Ohio): 104,944
8. Neyland Stadium (Knoxville, Tenn.): 102,455
9. Tiger Stadium (Baton Rouge, La.): 102,321
10. Bryant-Denny Stadium (Tuscaloosa, Ala.): 101,821
11. Bukit Jalil National Stadium (Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia): 100,411
12. Darrell K Royal-Texas Memorial Stadium (Austin, Texas): 100,119
13. Melbourne Cricket Ground (Melbourne, Australia): 100,024
14. Camp Nou (Barcelona, Spain): 99,786
15. Soccer City (Johannesburg, South Africa): 94,713
16. Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum (Los Angeles, Calif.): 93,607
17. Sanford Stadium (Athens, Ga.): 92,746
18. Rose Bowl (Pasadena, Calif.): 92,542
19. Cotton Bowl (Dallas, Texas): 92,100
20. Memorial Stadium (Lincoln, Neb.): 91,471
21. Wembley Stadium (London, England): 90,000
22. Ben Hill Griffin Stadium (Gainesville, Fla.): 88,548 23. Gelora Bung Karno Stadium (Jakarta, Indonesia): 88,306
24. Jordan-Hare Stadium (Auburn, Ala.): 87,451
25. Borg El Arab Stadium (Alexandria, Egypt): 86,000

Simple enough, right? The focus of the article is on SEC football stadiums, but their method of emphasising (via bold text) is easy to overlook and comparisons to other stadiums is difficult.

For my makeover, I’ve:

1. Changed the view into a bar chart, which helps see the size variances between the stadiums
2. Used colour to group the stadiums as to whether they are in the SEC, another college football stadium, or something else
3. Used the SEC’s official yellow for the background and blue for the bars of the SEC stadiums
4. Used the News Gothic font, which is the closest I can get to Benton Sans, the font the SEC uses on their website
5. Included a map for the locations of the college football stadiums (this was also my first time creating a custom Mapbox map)

In late November, Cork Gaines of Business Insider wrote about how the University of Alabama football team makes and spends its money. The two articles were accompanied by these two pie charts:

There are many issues with these charts:

1. They are pie charts, which makes comparing the slices difficult.
2. The slices are not labeled with the amount, so I have to make some guesses as to their contribution to the whole and then multiply that by the total shown in the titles. That's way too much work.
3. There are categories missing from the source data.
4. Why are these in two separate articles since they are a related story? Why aren't they combined in a single story?
5. There's no mention of the profit the football team turns.

It's not quite midnight on Friday night, so I still have time to get this post out. Like I mentioned last week, I'm going to try to do a chart makeover every Friday. Most of them will be short blog posts with the before and after images.

This week, my inspiration comes once again from Cork Gaines of Business Insider Sports. I also knew since it was getting late that it wouldn't take me long to find something on their blog that needed a makeover. Cork presented the chart below, which shows the NCAA Basketball Championships won since 1939 broken down by gender.

Some problems immediate jump out:

1. The chart is sorted backwards. The purpose of this chart is to emphasize the schools with the most titles, so they should be listed first.
2. You have to turn your head sideways to read the school names. Horizontal bars would be better.
3. He's trying to show both men's and women's championships together, yet the date ranges aren't the same for both genders. To make it an apples to apples comparison, I would start my men's titles at 1982 as well.

Given these few problems, I've come up with this chart as an alternative.



Download the data here and the workbook here (requires Tableau 8.2 beta - I made this with Tableau for Mac)