the Relationship Between a Cinderella Appearance in the NCAA Division I Men's Basketball

134 Pages·2017·1.37 MB·English

Seton Hall University
eRepository @ Seton Hall
Seton Hall University Dissertations and Theses
Seton Hall University Dissertations and Theses
(ETDs)
Spring 6-15-2018
If the Slipper Fits: the Relationship Between a
Cinderella Appearance in the NCAA Division I
Men’s Basketball Tournament and Institutional
Financial and Admissions Factors
Kelly A. Childs
[email protected]
Follow this and additional works at:https://scholarship.shu.edu/dissertations
Part of theHigher Education Commons, and theSports Management Commons
Recommended Citation
Childs, Kelly A., "If the Slipper Fits: the Relationship Between a Cinderella Appearance in the NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball
Tournament and Institutional Financial and Admissions Factors" (2018).Seton Hall University Dissertations and Theses (ETDs). 2553.
https://scholarship.shu.edu/dissertations/2553
IF THE SLIPPER FITS: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A CINDERELLA
APPEARANCE IN THE NCAA DIVISION I MEN’S BASKETBALL TOURNAMENT
AND INSTITUTIONAL FINANCIAL AND ADMISSIONS FACTORS

By

Kelly A. Childs

Dissertation Committee

Robert Kelchen, Ph.D., Mentor

Rong Chen, Ph.D.

Kristina M. Navarro, Ph.D.

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Seton Hall University
2018
© Copyright by Kelly A. Childs 2018
All Rights Reserved

! 2

ABSTRACT
This study examined the relationship between a non-Power Five Cinderella team
in the NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball Tournament and institutional financial and
admissions factors. The purpose of this study was to examine what, if anything, changes
for a non-Power Five school who makes the March Madness tournament as compared to
those similar schools who do not. This was a unique study because it looks at the
variables of percent admitted, applications, enrollment, SAT/ACT, and donations
together, different from the current body of research which has looked at many of these
institutional factors separately. Additionally, many of these studies are significantly
outdated, conducted in the 1990’s and early 2000’s, and do not take into account the new
composition of Division I athletics with the Power Five conferences and all others. This
study also provides a non-traditional definition of Cinderella that is both logical and
unique. The research question at the heart of this study looked at whether or not winning
a game or just making it to the March Madness tournament for schools outside of the
Power Five conferences led to an increase in stronger applicants or greater financial
donations relative to schools that did not make the tournament, looking both immediately
and three years later. The study determined that the research question was not statistically
significant across the board using either definition of Cinderella when analyzing all non-
Power Five schools or when excluding the BIG EAST Conference. The only statistical
findings were three years out a Cinderella team saw an increase in the number of
applications to the school and the percent of students admitted. Implications of the study,
limitations, as well as suggestions for future research are discussed.
Keywords: NCAA, basketball, Division I Men’s Basketball, March Madness, Cinderella,
non-Power Five, athletics impact on campus
! 3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My academic journey would not have been possible without the love, support, and
encouragement from so many. First, I would like to thank Dr. Robert Kelchen for serving
as my advisor throughout this process and being so willing to challenge me but also guide
me to the finish line. Thank you to my two other committee members, Dr. Rong Chen,
and Dr. Kristina Navarro for your time, encouragement, and assistance. To my Seton Hall
University professors, colleagues, and friends, I would not have wanted to be on this
journey with any other group. Thanks for the laughs and the friendships, Go Pirates!
To my friends and family, thank you for the constant encouragement to finish this
trek. To my Mom and Dad, thank you for inspiring me to strive for greatness, and for
instilling a passion of learning that will never leave me. You are my biggest fans.
Finally, to my husband Bradley, I am so appreciative of your continuous support
and encouragement to be the best version of myself everyday. I am so lucky to have you
as my partner in life. Thank you for cheering me on, keeping me focused, and reminding
me to be great, not good.

! 4
DEDICATION
To my mom, my absolute best friend and first teacher,
Geraldine “Gerry,” aka “G-Babe” O’Neil.
August 12, 1950 – July 10, 2013
“All that I am or hope to be I owe to my angel mother.”
-Abraham Lincoln

! 5
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract 3
Acknowledgements 4
Dedication 5
Table of Contents 6
List of Tables 8

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

Statement of the Problem………………………………………………………………...17
Purpose of the Research………………………………………………………………….18
Research Question……………………………………………………………………….21
Significance………………………………………………………………………………22

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW

Outlining the Literature Review…………………………………………………………22
Defining the Power Five…………………………………………………………………24
NCAA and Division I Athletics………………………………………………………….27
The March Madness Selection Process…………………………………………………..32
Theoretical Framework…………………………………………………………………..34
Financial Benefits of Making March Madness…………………………………………..38
Media Exposure and Corporate Sponsorship…………………………………………….44
Athletic Success and Potential Campus-Wide Financial Benefits……………………….46
Quantity and Quality of Applicants and College Choice………………………………...53
Fan Expectations and Student Expectations……………………………………………..62
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………….64

CHAPTER III: DATA AND METHODS

Research Question……………………………………………………………………….68
Restatement of Significance……………………………………………………………..69
Research Design………………………………………………………………………….70
Sample……………………………………………………………………………………71
Treatment Group…………………………………………………………………………73
Comparison Group……………………………………………………………………….74
Variables
Dependent Variables……………………………………………………………..74
Control Variables………………………………………………………………...77
Design Analysis………………………………………………………………………….78
Limitations……………………………………………………………………………….79
! 6
Descriptive Statistics…………………………………………………………………….80
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………….81

CHAPTER IV: RESULTS

Regression Results……………………………………………………………………….83
Applications……………………………………………………………………...84
Percent Admitted………………………………………………………………...85
SAT……………………………………………………………………………....87
Enrolled…………………………………………………………………………..88
Gifts……………………………………………………………………………...90
Summary…………………………………………………………………………………91

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION

Summary of Results……………………………………………………………………...94
Implications of the Study………………………………………………………………...95
Suggestions for Future Research……………………………………………………….100
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………...102

References 104
Appendix 118

! 7
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Power Five Schools .............................................................................................23
Table 2 Basketball Fund Distributions By Conference 2010-2015...................................40
Table 3 Number of Non-Power Five Teams Seeded Each Tournament............................67
Table 4 College Choice and the March Madness Correlation…………………………...71
Table 5 Earliest Potential Outcomes and Estimated Timeframe………………………...71
Table 6 Annual Number of Cinderella Teams Including BIG EAST…………………....73
Table 7 Dependent Variables…………………………………………………………….75
Table 8 Descriptive Statistics 2012 Unlogged Totals……………………………………80
Table 9 All Non-Power Five Schools Looking at the Three-Year Lagged Outcome:
Applications ……………………………………………………………………………..84
Table 9.1 All Non-Power Five Schools Looking at the One-Year Lagged Outcome:
Applications ……………………………………………………………………………..85
Table 10 All Non-Power Five Schools Looking at the Three-Year Lagged Outcome:
Percent Admitted ……………………………………………………………………….85
Table 10.1 All Non-Power Five Schools Looking at the One-Year Lagged Outcome:
Percent Admitted ……………………………………………………………………….86
Table 11 All Non-Power Five Schools Looking at the Three-Year Lagged Outcome:
SAT ……………………………………………………………………………………...86
Table 11.1 All Non-Power Five Schools Looking at the One-Year Lagged Outcome:
SAT ……………………………………………………………………………………...87
Table 12 All Non-Power Five Schools Looking at the Three-Year Lagged Outcome:
Enrolled…………………………………………………………………………………..88
! 8