1. Dan Wasson and Tom Mallon

2.  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. 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 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

4.  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.  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

6. YearFirstSecondThirdFourthFifth 1993–1994North CarolinaStanfordUCLAFloridaPenn State 1994–1995StanfordNorth CarolinaUCLAArizonaFlorida 1995–1996StanfordUCLAFloridaTexasMichigan 1996–1997StanfordNorth CarolinaUCLANebraskaFlorida 1997–1998Stanford(tie) North Carolina, FloridaUCLAMichigan 1998–1999StanfordGeorgiaPenn StateFloridaUCLA 1999–2000StanfordUCLAMichiganPenn StateNorth Carolina 2000–2001StanfordUCLAGeorgiaMichiganArizona 2001–2002StanfordTexasFloridaNorth CarolinaUCLA 2002–2003StanfordTexasOhio StateMichiganPenn State 2003–2004StanfordMichiganUCLAOhio StateGeorgia 2004–2005StanfordTexasUCLAMichiganDuke 2005–2006StanfordUCLATexasNorth CarolinaFlorida 2006–2007StanfordUCLANorth CarolinaMichiganUSC 2007–2008StanfordUCLAMichiganArizona StateTexas 2008–2009StanfordNorth CarolinaFloridaUSCMichigan

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

11.  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 = ++....

12.  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. State 1. 2 Independent SRS 2. 2 Normal Pops or n 1 n 2 Check 1. Assumed 2. Assumed ≥ 30

14.  Hypothesis ◦ Ho: μ Nike = μ Adidas (Avg. Ranking) ◦ Ha: μ Nike > μ Adidas  Test Statistic  P-Value ◦ P(t> -2.07┃df=22.61 )=0.9749 = -2.07

15.  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. (.0047, 104.2) 95% Confidence

17.  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. State 1. 2 Independent SRS 2. All exp. Counts ≥ 5 Check 1. Assumed 2. Assumed

19. 1. 2 Independent SRS 2. 2 Normal Pops or n 1 n 2 1. Assumed 2. Assumed ≥ 30

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

22.  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.  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.  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