SJustin McQuistanMatthew Cox

Grid of Shame

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 2012-2013 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. H1: A powerhouse and admirable school will have a strong

recruiting class. H2: If a school is ranked in the preseason top 25, they will

also rate high on the fame axis. H3: 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 2013-14 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 2013-14.

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 2013-2014 season

Points for 2012-2013 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

1 - 5 = 10pts

6 - 10 = 9pts

11 - 15 = 8pts

16 - 20 = 7 pts

21 - 25 = 6 pts

26 - 30 = 5 pts

31 - 35 = 4 pts

36 - 40 = 3 pts

41 - 100 = 2 pts

101 - 123 = 1 pt

Fame/Shame

NCAA violations or probation

Academic Progress Rates (APR) 2011-2012

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 2 Table 3

APR Ranking and ScoringPath to Draft Rankings

960=0pts 1-5 = 4 pts

961-970 = 1pt 6-10 = 3pts

971-980 = 2pt 11-15 = 2pts

981-990 = 3pt 16-20 = 1 pt

991-1000 = 4 pt

959-950 = -1pt

949-940 = -2pt

939-931 = -3 pt

930-below = -4pt

GSR Scoring

50-below= -2pt

51 -above = 2pt

School NameAPR 2011-2012 *most recent

NCAA Stat GSR (Graduation Success Rate) NCAA Violations/Arrests - past two years Path to the Draft Rank Preseason Ranking 2012-2013 Post Season Rank AP Top 25 USA Today Powerhouse Points Admirable Points Air Force 957 4 -1

Alabama 9951 arrest: conspiracy to kidnapp a child (-4pts) 17 4 1

Arizona 969 54 6 6 14 6 5 36 6Arizona State 973 34 34 40 11 2Arkansas 951 4 -1

Auburn 9401 arrest: second-degree possession marijuana (-1pt) 4 -3

Austin Peay 944 2 -2Baylor 965 Probation - 3 yrs and recruiting (-3pts) 23 31 23 25 22 -2Belmont 1000 100 43 6 6

Ole Miss 979 56

*4 arrests: possession of marijuana, DUI, paraphanelia, Marshal Henderson - drugs (-6pts) 28 9 -2

Oregon 918 85 18 15 18 18 29 -2Pittsburgh 975 54 1 arrest: 2 counts of DUI (-4pts) 38 37 38 32 13 0

Providence 9151 arrest: domestic violence, vandalism (-1pt) 4 -5

Saint Mary's 976 92 Four Years Probation - recruiting (-4pts) 33 42 8 -3

UCF 920

1 arrest: resisting, Post season 1 yr, probation 5 yrs, financial aid, recruiting, vacate record (-7pts) 4 -11

PowerhouseWeakling

Fame

Shame

References

Arrest Nation. (2013). Arrest Nation College Basketball. Arrest Nation The Sports Arrests Database. http://arrestnation.com/category/featured-commentary/

Bachman. (2013, 08 28). College football's grid of shame. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/articleSB10001424127887324324404579041092507233498.html

Brennan, Eamonn. (2013). Men’s College Basketball Nation: Path to the Draft 2013. ESPN. http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/tag/_/name/path-to-the- draft-2013

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. 5. http://www.tidesport.org/Grad%20Rates/2013%20Men's %20Basketball%20Tournament%20Teams%20Study.pdf.

NCAA. (2011, September 1). Legislative Services Database LSBDi.

https://web1.ncaa.org/LSDBi/exec/search

NCAA. (2013). APR Public Recognition Awards.

References

http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/newmedia/public/rates/index.html

RecruitingNation. (2013, February 15). How we determine our class ranking. ESPN. http://espn.go.com/college-sports/recruiting/basketball/mens/story/_/id/8951114/how-determine-our-class-rankings

Scout. (2013). Scout with Fox Sports.com on MSN. http://www.scout.com/3/about-team- rankings-bb.htm

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. 219-262). 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), 15-22.

Wann, D. L. (1997). The psychology of sport fans and sport spectators. In D. L. Wann (Ed.), Sport Psychology (pp. 325-347). Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall.