Author: horvath

Australian Open – Promise for American Women’s Tennis

horvath Leave a comment

With the exception of John Isner (2-1) and Serena Williams (3-1), the 21 American men and women made a weak showing at the Australian Open.

Fortunately, the results were better on the junior side. In total the 13 boys and girls posted combined winning records.

There is a glimmer of hope that the next generation of U.S. tennis greats is on the horizon, particularly for those worried about who is going to be the face of American women’s tennis when the Williams sisters retire.

Typically American juniors don’t flock to the Australian Open. It is a long and expensive trip.Such was the case in the Boys’ Singles.

Three Americans entered. Conner Farren and Trey Strobel were ousted in the first round. McKenzie McDonald had a much better showing. He had four wins and 1 loss (semifinals).

Ten American girls entered the singles draw. Their results are listed below.

Round of 64
The girls had a combined record of 7-3.
Winners: Stephanie Nanta, Julie Elbaba, Krista Hardebeck, Taylor Townsend, Samantha Crawford, Kyle McPhillips,

Christina Makarova.
Losers: Sachia Vickery, Catherine Harrison, Gabrielle Andrews.

Round of 32
The girls had a combined record of 5-2.
Winners: Krista Hardebeck, Taylor Townsend, Samantha Crawford, Kyle McPhillips, Christina Makarova.
Losers: Stephanie Nanta, Julie Elbaba.

Round of 16
The girls had a combined record of 2-3.
Winners: Krista Hardebeck, Taylor Townsend.
Losers: Samantha Crawford, Kyle McPhillips, Christina Makarova.

Quarterfinals
The girls had a combined record of 2-0.
Winners: Krista Hardebeck, Taylor Townsend.
Losers: None.

Semifinals
The girls had a combined record of 1-1. Townsend beat Hardebeck in the semifinals.
Winners: Krista Hardebeck, Taylor Townsend.
Losers: None.

Finals
Townsend won the championship and finished 6-0.

Combined, the 10 American girls had an 18-9 record.

Given these results, American tennis fans can look forward to the French Open with anticipation.

 

Participant Sports in a Community – Boulder Cycling Study

horvath Leave a comment

Thursday January 26 was a slow news day in Boulder.

The headlines on page 1 of the Daily Camera read, “A BIKE BIZ HUB – Survey finds $52 million impact from Boulder’s cycling-related sector”. Underneath the headline article was, “JFK hearse arrives in Longmont.” The other articles were of similar significance. Truly a slow day at the Camera.

The value of this article is that it illustrates the role of sporting activities in the economy. More importantly it shows that there are many different occupations and each makes a different contribution to our lifestyle and economic well-being. Every job is important, particularly in a down economy.

As well as being a great sport, cycling has a positive impact on the health of cyclists, unless they end up on the wrong end of a confrontation with citizens who don’t appreciate spandex wearing two-wheelers. In addition, the sport is part of Boulder’s outdoor recreation and life-style clusters.

Forty-one companies, 330 employees, and $52 million in sales. Based on its sales, the Boulder bike-biz hub is equivalent about 20 Hooters restaurants or one medium sized small business. Based on the survey results, the industry accounts for about 0.2% of the county’s employment and about 0.3% of the county’s Real GDP.

The stated impact of $52M is questionable. Sales and impact, or economic activity, measure different things. In some cases, the sales figures appear to be inflated.
• 214 rental repair employees generate $24.4 million in sales or $114,019 per worker. (This is reasonable).
• 13 manufacturing workers generate $10.4 million in sales or $800,000 per employee. (Either employment is understated or sales are overstated).
• 48 education and advocacy employees generated $7.9 million in sales or $164,583 per person. (It is surprising that education and advocacy groups would generate that amount in revenue).
• 55 miscellaneous workers brought in $9.5 million in sales or $172,727 per employee. (Without knowing the types of businesses, this seems high).
The average revenue generated per person was $158,182. Based on the above comment this seems high.

Economic activity is typically measured by wages, local purchases, and the multiplier effect. Most of the jobs associated with the cluster are lower than the average annual wages for the county. If average annual wages are $40,000 then the total is about $13 million.

Local purchases would be a subset of the sales total. If local purchases are about 1/4 of total sales then they would be about $13 million. The impact of the multiplier effect would be negligible.

This quick and dirty analysis estimates that the economic activity, or impact, of the bike-biz hub is in the range of $25-$30 million or about half of what the article stated.

The real message of the study is not in the numbers. Boulder would be an ideal hub for the cycling industry. It would be great to see more clothing, equipment, and accessory manufacturers headquartered in the county. As well, cycling events might have a positive economic impact if they attracted visitors from out of town to stay in hotels, eat in local restaurants, and buy from local stores.

If a fiscal impact analysis of the cycling industry was conducted it would likely uncover results that do not favor the sport. Sales tax revenues attributable to the cluster probably would be less than the expenses associated with the cyclist’s share of the cost to build the roads, sidewalks, and bike paths that they ride on.

Impact studies are not easy – even the best ones are subject to scrutiny. Hats off to the biz-bike hub folks for giving it their best shot. Weaknesses in the report distract from the good news in this story. Unfortunately, the report is not front page news, not even on a slow day.

 

Weak Showing by American Singles Players – Australian Open

horvath Leave a comment

This past weekend, Victoria Azarenka and Novak Djokovic were crowned Men’s and Women’s Champions at the Australian Open. The showing by the American players was dismal – with Serena Williams reaching the round of 16 and John Isner the round of 32. While they are wonderful players, neither Williams (30) nor Isner (almost 27) are in the prime of their careers.

The lack of success of the top players, in yet another Grand Slam event raises a number of questions.
• Many of the top players in the world train and practice in the United States. We have great coaches and great facilities, why don’t we have more of the top players? Why can foreign players come to the U.S. and become elite and the same doesn’t happen with American players?
• During the time the USTA Player Development Program has been in place there have been few successes, as measured by Grand Slam singles wins. There are roughly 25 million U.S. tennis players. With hundreds of millions of dollars invested in player development, why hasn’t the USTA program produced more elite players?
• Are American youth really interested in playing tennis at a highly competitive level? Are they willing to dedicate themselves to tennis between the ages of 8 and 18 or would they rather participate in a variety of activities while they are growing up?
• Has the sport become too structured with lessons, leagues, drill sessions, camps, and tournaments? Are players participating in these activities without learning how to practice or to tactically and mentally play the sport?
• The day of riding your bike to the park and playing all day is gone. Back in the day, players learned from playing pick-up games and adults. Was that possibly a better way to learn the sport?
• Is it too expensive for America’s youth to become elite tennis players? Are there too few clubs or recreation facilities where they can afford to learn to play?
• Are youth too consumed with computers, television, game boys, social media, and the electronic age to play tennis?
• Tennis is a challenging sport to master. Has the age of instant gratification made tennis less appealing?
• There are a number of sports options, including extreme sports. Is tennis too boring or is it perceived to be too boring?
• Is tennis properly marketed to America’s youth? Are introductory programs engaging youth or are they turning them off to the sport?
• Are America’s best athletes playing team sports where they can receive greater notoriety?
• Has the level of competition risen to the point that it is unrealistic to expect the U.S. to dominate the way they once did? If so, why are the Russian and Eastern European players having such success?
• Is the lack of success a sign that Americans have lost their drive to excel?
• Just as the U.S. is not the top country in sports such as cricket, does it really matter anymore that we no longer dominate tennis?

The results for Americans are listed below.

U.S. Men’s Results
Round of 128
The ten U.S. men players had a promising start – 6 wins and 5 losses.
• Winners – Andy Roddick, Ryan Sweeting, Mardy Fish, Sam Querrey, John Isner, Denis Kudia, and Donald Young.
• Losers – Michael Russell, Ryan Harrison, Jesse Levine, and Alex Kuznetsov.
Round of 64
The American players were not up to the task in the second round – 1 win and 5 losses.
• Winners – John Isner.
• Losers – Andy Roddick, Ryan Sweeting, Mardy Fish, Sam Querrey, and Donald Young.
Round of 32
The lone American player lost. NO AMERICAN MEN ADVANCED PAST THE ROUND OF 32 – 0 wins and 1 loss.
• Losers – John Isner.

The 11 American men won 7 matches and lost 11.

U.S. – Women’s Results
Round of 128
The 10 U.S. women players broke even in the first round – 5 wins and 5 losses.
• Winners – Christina McHale, Serena Williams, Sloane Stephens, Jamie Hampton, and Vania King.
• Losers – Varvara Lepchenko, Irina Falconi, Bethanie Mattek-Sands, Alison Riske, and Madison Keys.
Round of 64
The remaining American women posted a winning record in the second round – 3 wins and 2 losses.
• Winners – Christina McHale, Serena Williams, and Vania King.
• Losers – Sloane Stephens and Jamie Hampton.
Round of 32
Competition was tougher in the round of 32 – 1 win and 2 losses.
• Winners – Serena Williams.
• Losers – Christina McHale and Vania King.
Round of 16
This was the end of the tournament for the American women.  NO AMERICAN WOMEN ADVANCED PAST THE ROUND OF 16 – 0 wins and 1 loss.
• Loser – Serena Williams.

The 10 American women won 9 matches and lost 10.

The U.S. had 21 singles entrants – 16 wins 21 losses. Only John Isner (2-1) and Serena Williams (3-1) had winning records.

American tennis fans can only hope for a better showing at the French Open in 4 months.

 

Want to Turn Pro – What are the Chances?

horvath Leave a comment

Do you want your son or daughter to earn an athletic scholarship that will allow them to pursue a career as a professional in their sport?

The NCAA research department has compiled data that sheds light on the prospects of achieving that goal. As will be shown below, the chances of going pro are greatest for athletes who pursue professional careers in baseball or hockey.

Men’s Basketball
• Less than 1 in 35 high school seniors play in the NCAA.
• About 1 in 75 NCAA seniors get drafted by an NBA team.
• 3 in 10,000 high school seniors play in the NCAA and are drafted by an NBA team.

Women’s Basketball
• About 3 in 100 high school seniors play in the NCAA.
• Less than 1 in 100 NCAA seniors get drafted by a WNBA team.
• 2 in 10,000 high school seniors play in the NCAA and are drafted by a WNBA team.

Football
• About 1 in 16 high school seniors play in the NCAA.
• Less than 1 in 50 NCAA seniors get drafted by a NFL team.
• 8 in 10,000 high school seniors play in the NCAA and are drafted by an NFL team.

Baseball
• About 3 in 50 high school seniors play in the NCAA.
• Less than 9 in 100 NCAA seniors get drafted by a MLB team.
• 1 in 200 high school seniors play in the NCAA and are drafted by an MLB team.

Men’s Ice Hockey
• About 11 in 100 high school seniors play in the NCAA.
• Less than 1 in 26 NCAA seniors get drafted by a NHL team.
• 1 in 300 high school seniors play in the NCAA and are drafted by an NHL team.

Men’s Soccer
• Less than 3 in 50 high school seniors play in the NCAA.
• Less than 1 in 50 NCAA seniors get drafted by a MLS team.
• 1 in 1,250 high school seniors play in the NCAA and are drafted by an MLS team.

The data presented above and in the table below was updated on September 27, 2011 and posted at www.ncaa.org. These percentages are based on estimated data and should be considered approximations of the actual percentages (NCAA disclaimer).

Clearly, academics have to be important to most of the athletes who participate in college programs.

 

Technology in Sports Equipment – Ski Goggles

horvath Leave a comment

Skiers and boarders get all the cool stuff!

They wear jackets that are warmer and lighter and they have mobile aps to keep track of their number of runs on the slopes. Thanks to Zeal Optics of Boulder, they now have goggles with a built-in camera to capture all their bumps and turns on the slopes.

In touting their iON goggle, the company’s press release stated, “The goggle-wearer pushes buttons located on the outside of the goggles to operate the camera. The goggles have a viewfinder and controls that run on a rechargeable battery that works for up to six hours. The camera in the goggles has a 170-degree wide-angle lens to capture images in a “wide periphery.” The goggles come with software that allows users to adjust camera settings. Videos and pictures can be downloaded to computers through a mini-USB connection. The goggles also have a micro-SD card that can be used to show the videos and pictures on computers and TVs. Other goggles from Zeal offer GPS-related information that allows users to track altitude, speed, and temperature. The new goggles retail for $399.”

Will the iON goggles be a big hit? Can the goggles be used in ways that allow skiers to improve their skills or are they strictly an entertainment device? Will owners find crossover uses for their goggles – mountain biking, rock climbing, gardening, mowing the lawn, or après-ski activity? Will Zeal develop comparable products to allow sports enthusiasts to record the big ace on match point, the hole-in-one, or the diving catch to capture the city softball championship?

Sports are no longer as simple as they once were – strap on your skis and have a good time. For better or worse, technology has become a bigger part of the way enthusiasts enjoy their favorite sport. And it has become necessary for manufacturers to develop new products and continually change (and hopefully improve) their current product lines to stay afloat.

Further information about Zeal Optics can be found at www.zealoptics.com.

 

Seat Width Increases – Along with Need for Proper Diet and Exercise

horvath Leave a comment

The Boulder Daily Camera recently reported (1/5/12) that “The Dover (Delaware) International Speedway, at the behest of its ever-widening fan base, says it will increase the width of its seats by four inches. Hey, it was either that or take gravy off the concession menus.”

While there is a humorous side to the comment, there commentary about the fattening of America is less than entertaining.

Out of curiosity I conducted a quick and dirty search of seat widths.

Airlines – The seats on most domestic economy flights are 16.5″ to 18″, whereas first class seats are 19.5″ to 23″. Some international airlines have seats up to 36″ width in the first class section.

Carolina Panthers (Bank of America Stadium) – The stadium seat widths are 19 inches for lower and upper level seating and 21 inches for club level seating.

New England Patriots (Gillette Stadium) All seats are 19-21 inches wide with arm rests and cup holders.

New York (Met Life Stadium) – Stadium seat widths range from 19 to 22 inches with seat width upgrades from the old stadium at every level of the new stadium. Leg room is increased by 1 to 5 inches.

New York Yankees (Yankee Stadium) Seat width has been increased from 18″ to 22″ to 19″ to 24″ in the new stadium.

Performing Arts – the Wall Street Journal published an article quoting data from Theater Projects Consultants. It stated that standard seat width was 18″ in the late 19th century, 20″ in the 1990s, and 23″ in the 2010.

Princeton (Princeton Stadium) Lower bowl and upper grandstands are aluminum bench seating, with a seat width of 18 inches

University of Michigan (Michigan Stadium) – In response to a stadium renovation program, their website stated, “Almost all seats in the bowl will be widened to some degree. Ticketholders will gain between a quarter of an inch and just over an inch in each seat, depending on where they sit. Seats along the sideline areas will gain the most width because of the shape of the bowl. When the project is completed, seat widths will range from just over 16 inches in the student section to just under 18 inches along the sidelines near the top of the bowl.”

At the same time, I conducted a quick and dirty search on the size of Americans. The results were what I expected, but not what I wanted to hear.

In October 2004, the CDC National Center for Health Statistics released the report, Mean Body Weight, Height, and Body Mass Index (BMI) 1960-2002: United States that stated  “Adult men and women are roughly an inch taller than they were in 1960, but are nearly 25 pounds heavier on average as well. The average height of a man aged 20-74 years increased from just over 5’8″ in 1960 to 5’9½” in 2002, while the average height of a woman the same age increased from slightly over 5’3″ 1960 to 5’4″ in 2002. Meanwhile, the average weight for men aged 20-74 years rose dramatically from 166.3 pounds in 1960 to 191 pounds in 2002, while the average weight for women the same age increased from 140.2 pounds in 1960 to 164.3 pounds in 2002.”

In November 2007 Gallup released survey results that stated, “Two-thirds of Americans report that their actual weight is more than their ideal weight, although for many, the difference between actual and ideal is only 10 pounds or less. But 30% of women and 18% of men say their current weight is more than 20 pounds more than their ideal weight. The average American today weighs 17 pounds above what he or she considers to be ideal, with women reporting a bigger difference between actual and ideal than men.

In November 2011, Gallup released an addition report that said, “American men, on average, say they weigh 196 pounds and women say they weigh 160 pounds. Both figures are nearly 20 pounds higher than the average that men and women reported in 1990. As Americans’ actual weight has increased, so has their ideal weight.”

In November 2011 CDC reported, “Estimates of age-adjusted rates of leisure-time physical inactivity ranged from 10.1% to 43.0%. The regions with high rates of leisure time physical inactivity are the South and Appalachia, which also have high rates of diagnosed diabetes and obesity. In Alabama, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma and Tennessee physical inactivity rates are 29.2% or greater for more than 70% of counties.States where physical inactivity rates are 23.2% or lower in more than 70% of counties are California, Colorado, Hawaii, Minnesota, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.”

So what does this mean?  Americans are becoming more plump.  The implications extend beyond the size of stadium seats to obesity, diabetes, and other medical conditions. It is time to eat correctly and get out and exercise! The costs of these conditions to society are significant.

Sources for seat width
http://www.seatguru.com/
http://www.panthers.com/stadium/facts.html
http://www.gillettestadium.com/stadium_information/index.cfm?ac=quick_facts
http://www.metlifestadium.com/3_about_faqs03.php
http://newyork.yankees.mlb.com/nyy/ballpark/new_stadium_comparison.jsp
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703580104575361281784399058.html
http://www.princetontigersfootball.com
http://www.umich.edu/stadium/faq/

Sources for body weight
http://www.cdc.gov/media/pressrel/r041027.htm
http://www.gallup.com/poll/102919/average-american-weighs-pounds-more-than-ideal.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150947/Self-Reported-Weight-Nearly-Pounds-1990.aspx
http://www.cdc.gov/features/dsphysicalinactivity/

 

Academic and Athletic Rankings – We’re #1

horvath Leave a comment

About 40 years ago, college and university administrators increased the level of their discussion about the relationship between academics and athletic programs. It became necessary to tie the two together because of the anti-establishment mindset and the general unrest associated with the Viet Nam war era. As well, a backlash developed towards athletes that was initiated in part by Dave Meggyesy’s book, Out of Their League.

Athletics were pitted against academics. Were athletics important to the mission of the school? Did they divert funds that could be spent in academic areas? Did they distract students from their book learning? “Enlightened” professors and anti-jock community members gravitated towards each other and spoke out in unison against college athletic programs.

The phrase “student-athlete” was coined out of these discussions. The expression drew attention to the fact that college athletes were also students.

Over the years, athletic program leaders have strengthened their message about the relationship between athletics and academics in an effort to appease naysayers. In addition, they have included the concept into their strategic planning.

This was particularly evident when the University of Colorado and the University of Utah were added to the PAC-10 to form the PAC-12. Commissioner Larry Scott and local CU officials touted the PAC-12 as a premier academic and athletic conference.

In the 2011 Academic Ranking of World Universities, there are 53 U.S. schools in the top 100, including a total of 26 schools are from the Ivy League, Big 10, and PAC-12. The only schools excluded from the top 100 rankings were: Dartmouth, Iowa, Nebraska, Oregon, Oregon State, and Washington State. (Is it any wonder Scott recently struck an alliance with the Big 10 to expand competition between the two leagues?)

The top 10 global academic universities are:

  • Harvard
  • Stanford
  • MIT
  • Cal – Berkeley
  • Cambridge
  • California Institute of Technology
  • Princeton
  • Columbia
  • Chicago
  • Oxford

The ranking system placed a strong emphasis on science and publications. The top 10 schools were separated by about 44 points; Harvard had 100 points compared to 56.4 for Oxford. The schools ranked between the 11th and 100th positions were assigned point values between 54.8 and 24.2.

The ranking of global MBA programs, by Financial Times, produced similar results. Of the 53 U.S. schools in the top 100, 20 were from the Ivy League, Big 10, and PAC-12. The following schools from these conferences were not included in the top 100: Brown, Princeton, Nebraska, Minnesota, Michigan State, Iowa, Arizona, Colorado, Utah, Oregon, Oregon State, and Washington State.

The top 10 global MBA programs are:

  • London Business School
  • University of Pennsylvania: Wharton
  • Harvard Business School
  • Stanford University GSB
  • INSEAD
  • Hong Kong UST Business School
  • Columbia Business School
  • IE Business School
  • IESE Business School
  • MIT Sloan School of Management

Global academic and MBA rankings don’t receive the same level of attention, scrutiny, and debate as the BCS rankings. The people most concerned with the ratings are prospective students and administrators who have to explain subpar ratings.

So, what is the significance of these rankings?

Realistically, academic and athletic rankings highlight the distinctive competencies of colleges and their conferences. In the above example, these rankings provide evidence that supports the Ivy League’s claims of academic prowess. Similarly, they confirm that the PAC-12 and BIG-10 are elite academic and athletic conferences.

Prospective students make decisions about which school to attend based on rankings. The alumni and university communities use them to establish bragging rights. Rankings are a tool used by school administrators to market their institutions, programs, and competitive advantages. Finally, rankings are used for fundraising, recruiting, and to justify the existence of academic and athletic programs.

 

Great Scott – Another Good Idea – PAC 12 and Big 10 Commit to More Competition

horvath Leave a comment

PAC-12 Conference leader Larry Scott continues to amaze with his creativeness and aggressive approach for making the league the premier athletic conference in the country. Last week, Scott and Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany announced a commitment to schedule more competition, in all sports, between the 24 schools in the two conferences. In football, the goal is to create 12 inter-conference games by 2017.

The concept makes sense to the average sports enthusiast. Unfortunately the press release did not. For example it stated:
• “Collaboration will feature more games between the two conferences in an effort to enhance the experiences for all student-athletes, fans and alumni while broadening the national scope of both conferences.”
• “We believe that both conferences can preserve that sense of collegiality and still grow nationally by leveraging our commonalities in a way that benefits student-athletes, fans and alumni. This collaboration can and will touch many institutional undertakings, and will complement our academic and athletic missions.”
• “Through numerous conversations over the past several months with stakeholders from the Big Ten and Pac-12, we decided there would be great value in building upon the history and collegiality that exists between our member institutions, by initially committing to an increased frequency of play between our schools in all sports.”

The four sentences in these three bullet points were written at a Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level of 18.3. In other words, they are understandable by an average person with 6.3 years of college, i.e a college professor.

As well, the four sentences have a Flesch- Reading Ease score of 19.7. A score of 90 to 100 is understandable by an average 11 year old. A Reading Ease Score of 60 to 70 is easily understood by a 13 to 15 year old. As a point of reference, Time magazine is about 52 and the Harvard Law Review is in the low 30s (Wikipedia).

The press release was posted on the PAC-12 website on December 28 (when school is not in session). It was written at a level designed to appeal to only the academic-types at the 24 member institutions. Was this announcement made in this fashion because Scott and Delany expect to receive serious backlash from faculty members and the university communities?

In a nutshell, Scott and Delany said:
• This is a business venture between two of the country’s top athletic conferences.
• It is intended to generate more revenue for our television networks.
• It is intended to generate more revenue for both conferences and their member schools.
• We have a history of competing in the Rose Bowl.
• We want to build on the distinctive competency of past Rose Bowl competition.
• It will be easier to build a virtual super-conference rather than one made of bricks and mortar.
• Get your tickets now.
• $$$.
• Let the games begin.
FYI – This set of bullet points were written at a 7.2 grade level with a reading ease score of 63.

The concept is a slam dunk (in more ways than one). It is exciting for the sports enthusiast. And it should make these 24 athletic programs more financially viable.

To read the entire press release or to get more information about the PAC-12 click here or  click here for the Big 10 website.

Note: On July 13, 2012 the deal fell apart. In the article “Pac-12 and Big Ten Partnership Falls Apart,” the New York Times reported, “The fundamental fissure between the leagues was the Big Ten’s preference for 12 games with the Pac-12 every year. Larry Scott, the Pac-12’s commissioner, said in a telephone interview that it ultimately became a “flexibility”  issue for his teams, which play a nine-game conference schedule and have longstanding scheduling agreements with other teams, like those of Southern California and Stanford with Notre Dame. The Big Ten teams play an eight-game league schedule, making the addition of an annual marquee game outside the league easier.”

Bummer!

 

Newcomers Finish As Expected in First PAC-12 Season

horvath Leave a comment

The inaugural PAC-12 athletic season has come to a close and Colorado and Utah finished as expected. With the exception of cross country, the newcomers showed that they can compete in the conference, but that they are not yet serious contenders for the top spots in the league.

In the ever-important sport of football, Utah finished third in the South Division with a 4-5 record. The Buffs ended at the bottom of the pack with 2 wins and 7 losses. The conference will be well represented in the upcoming BCS Bowl Series.

On the volleyball court CU compiled a spirited 1-21 record, while Utah finished 9th with 6 wins and 15 losses in conference play. UCLA won the national championship, defeating Illinois 3-1 in four closely fought sets. Illinois squeaked by USC in the semifinals 3-2. Arguably, the PAC-12 is the toughest volleyball conference in the country which will present challenges for the newcomers in 2012. In December, Tom Hogan, CU assistant coach and former USOC coach, announced that he will be leaving the Buff program.

Utah finished a respectable 5th place with a 6-5 record in women’s soccer, while Colorado was 1-9-1. CU’s only win of the season came in conference play. Stanford won the National Championship in women’s soccer. In November, Coach Bill Hempen ended his successful 11-year tenure at CU.

The one bright spot for the Buffs was cross country. To nobody’s surprise, Colorado swept both the men’s and women’s PAC-12 events. At the NCAAs, Arizona’s Lawi Lalang won the Men’s individual title. The PAC-12 had finishers in the second, sixth and 8th position. Buff Richard Medina finished 8th. On the women’s side, PAC-12 Champion CU finished third overall.

For further information on the PAC-12, click here.

 

Sports Illustrated Vault – Top Women Covers

horvath Leave a comment

Which female athlete has most frequently adorned the covers of Sports Illustrated?

The answers can easily be found in the SI Vault (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/). The website includes a database that allows sports enthusiasts to conduct searches on articles, covers, galleries, and swimsuit issues. These searches provide an interesting perspective on what has been important in sports since SI began publishing in 1954.

The purpose of the following analysis is to identify the female athletes who most frequently adorned the SI covers and to look for other interesting trends. In December, 40 female athletes were selected for analysis. Their names, as listed in the charts below, were placed in the advanced search engine (exact phrase). Note that slightly different frequencies occurred when the names were placed in the general search box. It was also necessary to be aware of multiple athletes with the same name. As well, there were challenges associated with identifying tallies for women who played their sport under maiden and married names.

Keep in mind, the purpose of this analysis is not to identify the best athlete; rather the intent is to point out the athletes that adorned the SI covers most often. Athletes such as Suzanne Lenglen passed away before SI began publishing, so her coverage is minimal compared to current players. There are a number of factors that can determine whether an athlete makes the front cover or just receives mention in an article or picture gallery. The following questions address these factors:
• When did the athlete play?
• Did they participate in a team sport or an individual sport?
• How long has their sport been in existence, for example snowboarding is a relatively new sport?
• Did the athlete play in a major sport or a minor sport?
• Did the athlete play in a small market or a major market? Did they compete internationally?
• Who did the athlete have as sponsors and how well were they marketed?
• Was the athlete a flashy player who drew attention, such as Anna Kournikova, or were they a steady performer like Mary Jo Fernandez?
• How has the interest level in their sport changed over time? Are people as interested in that sport as they once were?
• Were there lockouts or strikes during an athlete’s career that prevented additional exposure?
• Did the athlete experience injuries that reduced media coverage?
• Were there other events that were more significant or overshadowed the significance of an athlete’s performance?
• Was it a “slow sports day”, which allowed for certain athletes to receive greater coverage?
It is interesting to note who has been on the cover most frequently, but it can be equally as intriguing to consider the factors that may have caused or prevented greater coverage.

The data suggests that there are a handful of athletes who might be considered media icons. While the men had media icons such as Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, and Muhammad Ali, no women received the same level of coverage as they did. Jordan was on the cover of SI 58 times, yet Martina Navratilova filled the spot only 9 times. The results also showed that only 10 of the 40 women in the sample appeared on the SI cover more than twice.

It is particularly interesting to note that 8 of the top 12 spots are filled by women’s tennis players. Would that be a function of the WTA’s efforts to market their women players and the sport or was that a result of a weak field on the men’s side?

It is also interesting to note that none of the 40 women were mentioned in articles more than 1,000 times. Half of the 50 men were mentioned more than 1,000 times.

In 1972 Title IX was put in place to give women an equal opportunity to participate in sports. Clearly, playing and coaching opportunities for women have increased drastically since then. Right or wrong, this basic analysis suggests that media coverage of men’s and women’s sports occurs at significantly different levels.

Analysis of the SI database is included in the December 2, 8, and 20 blog posts. The three discussions identify the sports, major sporting events, male athletes, and female athletes to most frequently adorn the front cover.