 Justin McQuistan Matthew Cox

Background  Our study is an extension of the research conducted by The Wall Street Journal in their examination of rating all 125 major- college football teams on two axes: weakling or powerhouse and admirable or embarrassing (Bachman, 2013)

Purpose of the Study  This study was designed to take an in-depth look into the Men’s College Basketball programs of the power conferences (Big Ten, Pac 12, ACC, Big 12, SEC, Big East, AAC, and Mountain West) including the Ohio Valley Conference. We also included those teams which may not belong to one of the previous conferences, but based on their final rankings and preseason rankings inside the top 30, qualified for research.

Research Question & Hypotheses  Our research is exploratory in nature. Our study is primarily concerned with how good teams are projected to be on the court as well as how embarrassing they have been off of it.  H 1 : A powerhouse and admirable school will have a strong recruiting class.  H 2 : If a school is ranked in the preseason top 25, they will also rate high on the fame axis.  H 3 : Teams that are projected to be a powerhouse and high in fame and will stay in the same quadrant throughout the year, pending no upcoming penalties or other shame factors

Significance of the Study  To provide hard data on how men’s college basketball teams rank on and off the court. In doing so we are properly providing the “common fan” as well as fans with strong “team identification” the tools to praise and ridicule the top 113 college basketball teams of the season.  The significance of the study is that very little research has been compiled that combines the Powerhouse/Weakling (preseason rankings, regular season rankings, recruiting class ranking, and post season experience) with the Shame/Fame (APR, NCAA violations and probation, graduation success rate, lottery picks in the past twenty five years, and sick or ick factor) of the top college-basketball programs, giving the consumer projections of their teams prospects for

Limitations  Short time frame to conduct research  Much of the analysis is subjective  Limited data

Powerhouse/Weakling  Preseason/APR/Coaches Poll  Widely accepted ranking systems  Regular season polls were from week 2 of the season  Points for season only to top 25 and vote getters  Used median score of total “powerhouse” points to determine our 0-value X-axis Preseason/APR/Coaches = 10pts = 9pts = 8pts = 7 pts = 6 pts = 5 pts = 4 pts = 3 pts = 2 pts = 1 pt

Fame/Shame  NCAA violations or probation  Academic Progress Rates (APR)  Graduate Success Rate (GSR)  “ick” factor = arrests and other violations

Fame/Shame  APR  Ranged from 1000 (perfect score) to 897  NCAA standard to be eligible for postseason play is 930  12 teams would not have qualified  Median score of 960  GSR  Only applied to teams that qualified for the 2013 NCAA tournament  Draft Rank  Very subjective  Only top 20 teams received points Table 2Table 3 APR Ranking and Scoring Path to Draft Rankings 960=0pts1-5 = 4 pts = 1pt6-10 = 3pts = 2pt11-15 = 2pts = 3pt16-20 = 1 pt = 4 pt = -1pt = -2pt = -3 pt 930-below = -4pt GSR Scoring 50-below= -2pt 51 -above = 2pt

References  Arrest Nation. (2013). Arrest Nation College Basketball. Arrest Nation The Sports Arrests Database.  Bachman. (2013, 08 28). College football's grid of shame. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from articleSB htmlhttp://online.wsj.com/  Brennan, Eamonn. (2013). Men’s College Basketball Nation: Path to the Draft ESPN. draft  Lapchick, Richard. (2013, March 18). Keeping Score When It Counts: Graduation Success and Academic Progress Rates for the 2013 NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball Tournament Teams. The Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sports at the University of Central Florida, p %20Basketball%20Tournament%20Teams%20Study.pdf.  NCAA. (2011, September 1). Legislative Services Database LSBDi.   NCAA. (2013). APR Public Recognition Awards.

References   RecruitingNation. (2013, February 15). How we determine our class ranking. ESPN /how-determine-our-class-rankings  Scout. (2013). Scout with Fox Sports.com on MSN. rankings-bb.htmhttp://  Sloan, L. R. (1979). The function and impact of sports for fans: a review of theory and contemporary research. In J. J. Goldstein (Ed.), Sports, games and play: Social and psychological viewpoints (pp ). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.  Sutton, W. A., McDonald, M. A., Milne, G. R., & Cimperman, J. (1997). Creating and fostering  Fan identification in professional sport. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 6(1),  Wann, D. L. (1997). The psychology of sport fans and sport spectators. In D. L. Wann (Ed.), Sport Psychology (pp ). Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall.