College Basketball Archives - On One Hand Business... On the Other Hand Sports

Residence of Elite Eight Basketball Players

April 9, 2014November 13, 2016 horvath Leave a comment

This brief analysis evaluated rosters of men’s and women’s Elite Eight NCAA basketball teams to determine what states or countries their players reside in. It looked at information published on their athletic websites in March 2014. Players were included in the sample if their average playing time per game for the season was greater than 15 minutes. As well, this study looked at the population of the states where the universities are located to see if there might be a relationship between the size of the population and the number of in-state players.

The following tables list the schools, number of in-state players, out-of-state players, their finish in the Elite Eight, total state population, and rank of the state in terms of population.

The results for the men are in the table below.

Residence of Men Players in Elite Eight 2014

The results for the women are in the table below.

Residence of Women Players in Elite Eight 2014

Listed below are similarities and differences between the men’s and women’s programs.

Similarities

The men and women players come from a similar number of states, 20 for the men and 19 for the women.
None of the top players for the mens’ and womens’ championship teams were from in-state.
Teams from larger states tend to have more in-state players.
A majority of the players on most teams are from out-of-state.
The reliance on foreign players is minimal; it is slightly higher for the men than the women.
The foreign country with the highest number of players in Canada.
The programs with a higher percentage of in-state players are less “successful” (this is not necessarily a cause and effect relationship).
The schools from states with smaller populations typically have fewer in-state players and are less “successful”.

Differences

The percentage of out-of-state U.S. players is greater for women than men, 75.0% vs. 60.4%.
The percentage of in-state players is greater for the men than women, 30.2% vs. 23.2%.
The states with the highest number of players for the men are Michigan and Ohio. For the women, the top states are Texas, New York, and Pennsylvania.

For more details see Residence of Top Players 2014 NCAA Elite Eight Basketball Teams. This report identifies the home state or country of the top PAC 12 basketball players and compares differences between the men and women teams.

Residence of PAC 12 Men and Women Basketball Players

April 2, 2014November 13, 2016 horvath Leave a comment

This brief analysis evaluated rosters of men’s and women’s PAC-12 basketball teams to determine what states or countries their players reside in. It looked at information published on their athletic websites in March 2014. Players were included in the sample if their average playing time per game for the season was greater than 15 minutes.

The results for the men are in the table below.

Residence of Men PAC-12 Basketball Players — Residence of Men Basketball Players

The results for the women are in the table below.

Residence of Women PAC-12 Basketball Players

Listed below are similarities and differences between the men’s and women’s programs.

Similarities

A majority of the players on most teams are from out-of-state.
The reliance on foreign players is minimal; the percentage of foreign players is 15.1% for the men vs. 8.0% for the women.
The state with the highest number of players is California.
The foreign country with the highest number of players in Canada.
The programs with a higher percentage of in-state players are more successful (this is not necessarily a cause and effect relationship).
The men’s programs had seven teams with winning records and the women’s programs had six teams. Three of the four winning programs are California teams, although the California teams are different for men and women.
The schools from states with smaller populations typically have fewer in-state players and are less successful.

Differences

The percentage of in-state players is greater for women than men, 36.4% vs. 23.3%.
The percentage of out-of-state U.S. players is greater for men than women, 61.5% vs. 55.7%.
The men players are from more states than the women, 21 vs. 16.
The reliance on California players is greater among women than men, 39 women vs. 30 men.
Female programs have more players from Texas and Washington than the men.
The percentage of out-of-state foreign players is greater for men 15.1% vs. 8.0% for women.
The men foreign players are from 7 countries compared to 3 countries.
Ten of the mens’ teams were competitive (won at least 8 games), whereas, only 7 of the womens’ teams were competitive.

For more details see the report PAC 12 Location of Residence for Basketball Programs. This report identifies the home state or country of the top PAC 12 basketball players and compares differences between the men and women teams.

Which States do PAC 12 Women’s Basketball Players Reside in?

March 15, 2014November 13, 2016 horvath Leave a comment

This brief analysis evaluated rosters of women’s PAC-12 basketball teams to determine the residence of their players (in-state, out-of-state, or foreign country). It looked at information published on their athletic websites in March 2014. Players were included in the sample if their average playing time per game for the season was greater than 15 minutes.

The states with the leading number of players were California (39), Washington (11), Texas (7), and Arizona (5). About 70% of the players indicated their residence was in these 4 states. Six players claimed Canada as their residence.

Of the 88 players listed in the sample, 32 players, or 36.4%, were in-state players. Cal, USC, UCLA, and Washington had more than half its players from in-state. Two schools didn’t have any in-state players, Arizona and Oregon.

Residence of PAC-12 Women's Basketball Players — Residence of PAC-12 Women’s Basketball Players

There were 49 out-of-state players from the U.S., 55.7%, and 7 foreign players, 8.0%. Overall, 63.7% of the players were out-of-state.

Individually, the top 6 teams in the conference had winning records. Collectively, they won 69% of their games. As a group, the residence of their players follows:

54% in-state.
41% out-of-state U.S.
5% out-of-state foreign.

The bottom 6 teams had losing records. As a group they won 31% of their games. Collectively, the residence of their players follows:

18% in-state.
71% out-of-state U.S.
11% out-of-state foreign.

For more details see the report Residence of Top Players 2013-2014 PAC 12 Basketball Teams. This report identifies the home state or country of the top PAC 12 basketball players and compares differences between the men and women teams.

Are PAC 12 Mens’ Basketball Programs Bringing in Hired Guns to Win?

March 15, 2014November 13, 2016 horvath Leave a comment

In Division 1 men’s basketball, a premium is placed on winning because it is a revenue generating sport. A key to success is recruiting players who have “A” talent.

Are the universities in the PAC-12 bringing in “hired guns” to make their basketball programs successful? If so are they bringing in players from out-of-state or from other countries? Do PAC-12 players come from all over the U.S. or are they primarily from the Western United States? Are teams more successful if they have a higher percentage of in-state players?

This brief analysis evaluated rosters of men’s PAC-12 basketball teams published on their athletic websites in March 2014. Players were included in the sample if their average playing time per game for the season was greater than 15 minutes.

The states with the leading number of players were California (30), Texas (5), Arizona (4), Oregon (4), and Washington (4). About 55% of the players indicated their residence was in these 5 states.

Of the 86 players listed in the sample, 20 players, or 23.3%, were in-state players. Only Cal had more than half its players from in-state. Two schools didn’t have any in-state players, OSU and Washington.

There were 53 out-of-state players from the U.S., 61.6%, and 13 foreign players, 15.1%. Overall, 76.7% of the players were out-of-state. Six of the foreign players come from Canada, more than any state except California.

Are men's PAC-12 basketball programs bringing in hired guns to win? — Residence of players in men’s PAC-12 basketball programs.

Five schools didn’t have any foreign players (Arizona, Cal, Washington, UCLA, and Colorado).

Individually, the top 7 teams in the conference had winning records. Collectively, they won 61% of their games. As a group the residence of their players follows:

31% in-state.
55% out-of-state U.S.
14% out-of-state foreign.

The bottom 5 teams had losing records. As a group they won 35% of their games. Collectively, the residence of their players follows:

14% in-state.
70% out-of-state U.S.
16% out-of-state foreign.

Clearly, most men’s programs (at least in the PAC 12) look outside their state to find players to construct winning teams. This limited sample size shows that recruitment of out-of-state players may not guarantee a winning season. In addition it may be a questionable tactic for programs that need to build their fan base or generate alumni support.

Incentives for the Coach

May 18, 2012November 13, 2016 horvath Leave a comment

It’s a bummer to hear that Coach Tad Boyle’s salary for taking the Buffs to the Big Dance this past season was only $165,830. That is only three times as much as the average for Colorado wage earner, but it is a pittance compared to coaches at the country’s top programs.

After his first season at CU, Boyle was recruited to coach elsewhere, but declined to stay at CU – for a meager salary of $165,000. There is more to the story – his total compensation package includes incentives.

According to the Daily Camera (March 15, 2012) there are six people on the Boulder campus who have multi-year contracts. Tad Boyle is one of the six.

The Board of Regents has directed campus officials to structure these six contracts in a manner that focuses on incentives, rather than large salaries. This is similar to salesmen who are paid commissions or executives who receive other types of performance incentives. In other words, the coach gets a cut of incremental revenue he/she is able to generate for the school. When viewed from that perspective, most will find the concept of his total compensation package to be more palatable.

The breakdown of Boyle’s salary follows:
Base – $165,830
Public relations – $180,000
Fundraising – $96,000
Sponsorship support – $108,000
Summer camps – $35,000
Country club – $6,480
Academic performance incentive – $34,000 in 2012 ($68,000 other years)
Welfare and development incentive – $33,000 in 2012 ($66,000 other years)
Outreach and reputation incentive – $33,000 in 2012 ($66,000 in other years).
The total package is worth $691,310.
This is a lot more than $165,000, but still well below the total for coaches at other major programs.

The breakdown of Boyle’s incentives follows:
15 regular season wins – $30,000
17 regular season wins – $20,000
19 regular season wins – $30,000
Pac-12 tournament semifinals – $75,000
Pac-12 tournament win – $30,000
NCAA tournament appearance $105,000.
These incentives, totaling $290,000, were earned by Boyle this past season.

Other incentives that were available included:
NCAA second round appearance – $30,000
NCAA third round appearance – $30,000
NCAA fourth round appearance – $30,000
Final four appearance – $105,000
National championship – $750,000.

A lackluster season, with 15 wins, will result in a $2,000 bonus per game won. If two additional games can be won, or 17 wins, then $10,000 is awarded for each of those two wins. The value of a game won in the Big Dance is $30,000 per game.

If you were the coach, how would you deal with the pressure of coaching a game that included a $2,000 bonus if you won? $10,000 for each game won? $30,000 for each game won? or $750,000 to win the national championships?

By offering incentives, colleges are able to contain and manage their costs. At the same time, the likelihood of transgressions is much greater when results are tied too closely to incentives. For additional information take a look at USA Today. They typically prepare a database of coach’s salaries and incentives in conjunction with March Madness.