Division 1 College Sponsors

Dan Wasson and Tom Mallon

We wanted to determine whether or not the sponsorship of a Division 1 College has anything to do with their success rate in athletics◦ We measured success rates by taking into

consideration the standings of the 2008-2009 NACDA Director’s Cup

We created a numbered list of 347 Division 1 Universities and randomly generated numbers on our calculator to select our sample of 60 schools

Study Description

Alabama A&MArkansas StateArmyBoise State UniversityBoston CollegeCentral MichiganClemsonColgateCornellDaytonDrake UniversityEast Tennessee StateEastern Kentucky UniversityGeorgia State University Georgia TechHampton UniversityIndiana StateKansas State UniversityLiberty UniversityLouisiana State University

List of CollegesMiddle Tennesee StateMississippi Valley StateMonmouthNorfolk State UniversityNorthern Illinois UniversityNotre DameOklahoma State UniversityOregon Rice UniversityRider UniversitySacred Heart UniversityUtah StateStanford UniversityStony Brook UniversitySUNY BuffaloSyracuse UniversityTexas A&MTowson UniversityU.S. Naval AcademyUNC Chapel Hill

UNC WilmingtonUniversity of AlabamaUniversity of California, BerkeleyUniversity of FloridaUniversity of GeorgiaUniversity of IowaUniversity of KansasUniversity of MississippiUniversity of MissouriUniversity of MontanaUniversity of New MexicoUniversity of PennsylvaniaUniversity of PortlandUniversity of South CarolinaUniversity of South FloridaUniversity of WisconsinUniversity of WyomingUniversity of UtahVirginia CommonwealthWashington State University

After randomly selecting our list of schools, we then found the conference that each school was in, along with it’s sponsor

We also found each school’s ranking in the 2008-2009 Director’s Cup

Study Description (cont.)

Given annually by the National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics to the colleges and universities with the most success in collegiate athletics

Points are based on order of finish in various NCAA sponsored championships or, in the case of Division I Football, media-based polls

Measures the overall athletic strength of a school taking into consideration all sports, men’s and women’s

Director’s Cup

Year First Second Third Fourth Fifth

1993–1994 North Carolina Stanford UCLA Florida Penn State

1994–1995 Stanford North Carolina UCLA Arizona Florida

1995–1996 Stanford UCLA Florida Texas Michigan

1996–1997 Stanford North Carolina UCLA Nebraska Florida

1997–1998 Stanford (tie) North Carolina, Florida UCLA Michigan

1998–1999 Stanford Georgia Penn State Florida UCLA

1999–2000 Stanford UCLA Michigan Penn State North Carolina

2000–2001 Stanford UCLA Georgia Michigan Arizona

2001–2002 Stanford Texas Florida North Carolina UCLA

2002–2003 Stanford Texas Ohio State Michigan Penn State

2003–2004 Stanford Michigan UCLA Ohio State Georgia

2004–2005 Stanford Texas UCLA Michigan Duke

2005–2006 Stanford UCLA Texas North Carolina Florida

2006–2007 Stanford UCLA North Carolina Michigan USC

2007–2008 Stanford UCLA Michigan Arizona State Texas

2008–2009 Stanford North Carolina Florida USC Michigan

Number of Schools with Each Sponsor

Nike; 37Adidas; 14

NewBalance; 2

Under Armour; 5

Reebok; 2

SponsorAdidasNew BalanceNike

ReebokUA

A-10ACC

America East ConferenceAmerican

Atlantic SunBig 10Big 12

Big EastBig Sky

Big SouthColonial Athletic Association

Conference USAIvy League

Metro Atlantic Athletic ConferenceMidamerican

Mideastern Athletic ConferenceMissouri ValleyMountain West

NortheastOhio Valley

Pac 10Patriot League

SECSouthw estern Athletic Conference

Sun BeltWest Coast Conference

Western Athletic Conference

Frequency of Conference_USA1 2 3 4 5 6 7

count

Collection 1 Bar Chart

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0 50 100 150 200 250 300Nike

Collection 1 Box Plot

Directors_Cup

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0 50 100 150 200 250 300Adidas

Box PlotsCollection 1

Nike

96.05411

3564

153269

S1 = meanS2 = minS3 = Q1S4 = medianS5 = Q3S6 = max

Collection 1

Adidas

145.9292172

144231235

S1 = meanS2 = minS3 = Q1S4 = medianS5 = Q3S6 = max

Chi-Square Test for Goodness of Fit

Assumptions

State

1. 2 Independent SRS

2. All exp. Counts ≥ 5

Check1. Assumed

2. Assumed

Hypothesis◦ Ho: Sponsorship is evenly distributed between all

schools◦ Ha: Sponsorship is not evenly distributed between

all schools Test Statistic

◦ 2=(obs.-exp.)2 (37-12)2 (14-12)2

exp. 12 12 2=73.1666667

P-Value◦ P(2 >73.16667╽df=4)=4.864 x 10-15

Chi-Square test for Goodness of Fit

= + + ....

We reject Ho because P-Value < α=0.05 We have sufficient evidence that sponsorship is not evenly distributed

between all schools This means that some companies sponsor

more schools than others

Conclusion

2-Sample T-Test

Assumptions

State

1. 2 Independent SRS

2. 2 Normal Pops or

n1

n2

Check 1. Assumed

2. Assumed

≥ 30

Hypothesis◦ Ho: μNike = μAdidas (Avg. Ranking)◦ Ha: μNike > μAdidas

Test Statistic

P-Value◦ P(t> -2.07┃df=22.61 )=0.9749

2-Sample T-Test

2

22

1

21

21

ns

ns

xxt

= -2.07

We fail to reject Ho because P-Value > α=0.05

We have sufficient evidence that the mean of Nike schools’ ranking in the Directors cup is equal to the mean of Adidas schools’ rankings.

Conclusion

=

2-Sample T-Interval

)()(2

22

1

21*

21ns

nstxx

(.0047, 104.2)95% Confidence

We are 95% confident that the difference between the mean of Nike schools’

Directors cup Rankings and Adidas schools’ rankings is between 0.004 and 104.2

Conclusion

AssumptionsState

1. 2 Independent SRS

2. All exp. Counts ≥ 5

Check1. Assumed

2. Assumed

Chi-Square Test for Association

Assumptions

1. 2 Independent SRS

2. 2 Normal Pops or

n1

n2

1. Assumed

2. Assumed

≥ 30

Hypothesis◦ Ho: There is no association between sponsor and

conference◦ Ha: There is an association between sponsor and

conference Test Statistic

◦ 2=11,656.8 P-Value

◦ P(2>11,656.8┃df=104)=0

Chi Square Test for Association

....629.70

)629.7028(565.71

)565.71153(.exp.)exp( 222

2

obs

We reject Ho because P-Value < α=0.05

We have sufficient evidence that there is no association between sponsor and conference.

Conclusion

After randomly generating our first list of schools, we found that some of the schools did not have a determined sponsor for every sport. This meant we had to eliminate these schools and re-select schools on the calculator.

Some schools have the same ranking in the Directors cup due to ties.◦ This could alter our data and make our results

inaccurate.

Sources of Bias

This study can be applied to most of us because the majority of people in this class will be attending college next year.

If you are going to play sports in college, the sponsor of your school will most likely not have an effect on how well your team performs.

Application

We thought that this project was very interesting to do overall.

Our favorite part was gathering our list of colleges and finding their sponsors.

We have concluded that the sponsor of a particular college does not indicate how well they will perform on the field.

We thought at the beginning that Nike would have better results, however through our research we were proved wrong.

Personal Opinions/Conclusions

Thank you for watching <3