The Relationship Between College Football Success and College Admissions

In a 2010 paper, Yiming Wang attempted to use mathematical methods of evaluation to examine the advertising affect issue yet again, arguing that many previous studies which found positive relationships between football programs’ success and incoming SAT scores were flawed and statistically insignificant. Using quantitative linear regression, Wang specifically reexamines the data from Tucker’s 2005 study and concludes that there is, in fact, no statistically significant evidence for the advertising effect of college football on universities’ academic success. He concludes that the perceived improvements from Tucker’s research are a result of other factors and rely on school-specific factors, such as culture and tradition, alumni giving, and perceived reputation, rather than actual on field performances of the football program. 
Wang's research is important in that he uses statistical evidence (which is getting harder for me to decipher with time) to prove no advertising affect with a single great season. He does say in his conclusions that there is potential for change if there is a culture of winning for an athletic department. This research will be important in helping me develop a cost model for athletic programs.

·      Wang, Yiming Benjamin. (2010). “The Relationship Between College Football Success             and College Admissions.” Mathematical Methods in the Social Sciences,             Northwestern University. 

Big-Time Pigskin Success: Is there an Advertising Effect?

Irvin Tucker, in a 2005 study, reexamined this issue by attempting to compare a school’s success in the modern era BCS system with the SAT scores of incoming freshmen applying to those schools. Tucker compared 78 colleges and universities around the United States by using a least squares regression method to compare and contrast their level of football success with their level of SAT scores. He concludes that there is a positive correlation and even goes so far as to make claims about how much a program’s football success can impact their academic future. Tucker, citing the data collected for the 78 institutions in his study, argues that 10% increase in a school’s winning percentage over a 5 year period will raise the average SAT scores of that school’s incoming freshmen by 14 points. Also, he claims that just one additional bowl appearance by that school’s football team in the same 5 year period will increase incoming average SAT scores by another 12 points.  
These findings are exciting to me because they establish an advertising effect with successful football programs and higher quality students. Tucker's research will be a very important resource for me in the future.

·      Tucker, Irvin B. (2005). “Big-Time Pigskin Success: Is There an Advertising Effect?”             Journal of Sports Economics 6(2): 222-229.

A Reinvestigation of the Relationship Between Big-Time Basketball Success and Average SAT Scores

In 1993, Irvin Tucker and Louis Amato expanded on McCormick and Tinsley’s research, looking at similar institutions to draw their own conclusions. They found that McCormick and Tinsley’s article was valid, and reaffirmed their findings, concluding that universities with higher ranked basketball programs saw applications from freshman with higher SAT scores than those universities with lower ranked programs. They concluded that there is a valid advertising effect if there is a tradition of major hoop success over time that creates a wider and higher quality applicant pool (which gives universities more opportunity to select the best). 
This is important to my research because it draws a positive correlation to long term basketball success and higher quality applicants. I hope to see this same finding with football.

·      Tucker, Irvin B., and Louis Amato. (1993). “Does Big-Time Success in Football or             Basketball Affect SAT Scores?” Economics of Education Review 12(2): 177-181.

College Football and Student Quality: an Advertising Effect or Culture and Tradition?

In 2009, D. Randall Smith published an article in which he proposed that the previous studies were all too broad in their scope and arrived at different interpretations because they were all using different data and could not agree on standard measures of academic or athletic success. Attempting to remedy this, Smith proposed a more methodological approach by breaking down “success” into measureable categories, such as “December bowl appearance, “season winning percentage”, “national championship victories”, etc,  compared data for all these individual categories with SAT scores of incoming freshmen. Smith found statistical support for every category but one, appearing on the surface to support the claim that football programs have a real, measurable impact on the average SAT scores of incoming applicants. However, he also presents some different ideas to think about and claims that other factors may be attributable to this rise in SAT scores. Smith points out that schools who pay their profesors an average salary of $90,000 a year increase their incoming class’ SAT profile by 130 points, schools who keeps costs under $35,000 have a 32 point increase, and institutions classified nationally as research universities receive another 129 point increase in their SAT profile. According to his findings, he determines that while some students chose schools based on athletics, most are driven by more traditional evaluations of factors such as academic reputation, faculty, and cost of attendance. Smith concludes that while some earlier data and even his own research appears to show a correlation between football success and academic prosperity on the surface, investing in academic measures rather than athletics is a much better way for universities to raise the stock of their students and creates much stronger results for them in the long run. 

·      Smith, D. Randall. (2009). “College Football and Student Quality: An Advertising Effect or

Culture and Tradition?” American Journal of Economics and Sociology 68(2): 553-579.

For-profit Versus Nonprofit Microfinance: How Are the Poor Affected?

Weinberg, Brian. "For-profit Versus Nonprofit Microfinance: How Are the Poor Affected?." The Eagle Feather. University of North Texas Honors College, n.d. Web. 24 January 2010.

The Chiapas Project is obviously a philanthropy that is very near to Brian Weinberg’s heart. This organization uses money from recycled cell phones to fund microfinance loans. Microfinance lending occurs when institutions give nominal amounts to individuals in poorer nations hoping to ignite a sense of entrepreneurship and rising social status. In his article, Weinberg deconstructs poverty and some methods of microfinance lending.

There are two views of poverty: sociological and statistical. Sociologically, poverty can be defined as the existence deprived of the basic human needs such as food, clothes, shelter, water, and even education. Weinberg states that this is somewhat ambiguous and can be cemented further. The second view, statistical, is established by the World Bank to be somewhere around two dollars a day. Weinberg also mentions research leading to five factors—not causations—of poverty. Ultimately, he examines the for-profit and non-profit lending models that allow impoverished people to borrow money in the hopes of raising their socioeconomic status.

The strongest portions of Weinberg’s research were the tables (Appendix) allowing readers to compare the feasibility and economic soundness of each lending style. The weakest parts are comprised of his experiences in these third world countries, and the exclusion of references for some haphazard statistics. As simple as it sounds, Weinberg showed me that I should research something I truly care about. With that, my research will have depth, appeal, and relevance.