Division 1 College Sponsors

1. Division 1 College Sponsors Dan Wasson and Tom Mallon

2. Study Description • 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

3. List of Colleges • Middle Tennesee State • Mississippi Valley State • Monmouth • Norfolk State University • Northern Illinois University • Notre Dame • Oklahoma State University • Oregon • Rice University • Rider University • Sacred Heart University • Utah State • Stanford University • Stony Brook University • SUNY Buffalo • Syracuse University • Texas A&M • Towson University • U.S. Naval Academy • UNC Chapel Hill • UNC Wilmington • University of Alabama • University of California, Berkeley • University of Florida • University of Georgia • University of Iowa • University of Kansas • University of Mississippi • University of Missouri • University of Montana • University of New Mexico • University of Pennsylvania • University of Portland • University of South Carolina • University of South Florida • University of Wisconsin • University of Wyoming • University of Utah • Virginia Commonwealth • Washington State University Alabama A&M Arkansas State Army Boise State University Boston College Central Michigan Clemson Colgate Cornell Dayton Drake University East Tennessee State Eastern Kentucky University Georgia State University Georgia Tech Hampton University Indiana State Kansas State University Liberty University Louisiana State University

4. Study Description (cont.) • 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

5. Director’s Cup • 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

7. Number of Schools with Each Sponsor

9. Box Plots

10. Chi-Square Test for Goodness of FitAssumptions State 1. 2 Independent SRS 2. All exp. Counts ≥ 5 Check 1. Assumed 2. Assumed

11. Chi-Square test for Goodness of Fit • Hypothesis • Ho: Sponsorship is evenly distributed between allschools • 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 + + .... =

12. Conclusion • 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

13. 2-Sample T-TestAssumptions State 1. 2 Independent SRS 2. 2 Normal Pops or n1 n2 Check 1. Assumed 2. Assumed ≥ 30

14. 2-Sample T-Test • Hypothesis • Ho: μNike = μAdidas (Avg. Ranking) • Ha: μNike > μAdidas • Test Statistic • P-Value • P(t> -2.07┃df=22.61 )=0.9749 = -2.07

15. Conclusion • 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. =

16. 2-Sample T-Interval (.0047, 104.2) 95% Confidence

17. Conclusion • 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

18. Assumptions State 1. 2 Independent SRS 2. All exp. Counts ≥ 5 Check 1. Assumed 2. Assumed

19. Chi-Square Test for AssociationAssumptions 1. 2 Independent SRS 2. 2 Normal Pops or n1 n2 1. Assumed 2. Assumed ≥ 30

20. Chi Square Test for Association • 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

21. Conclusion • We reject Ho because P-Value < α=0.05 • We have sufficient evidence that there is no association between sponsor and conference.

22. Sources of Bias • 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.

23. Application • 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.

24. Personal Opinions/Conclusions • 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.

25. Thank you for watching <3