Summary of Preliminary Results of Socioeconomic Factors on Football Performance
To see a scatterplot of average computer points over the past 5 years vs. Median Household Income for each divsion, click here:
Generally speaking, socioeconomic factors do appear to be significant predictors of football success for public schools in larger divisions. However, this importance decreases (and may even be disadvantageous) in smaller divisions.
Regression Results:
Division 1
Regression Statistics 

Multiple R 
0.367959 
R Square 
0.135394 
Adjusted R Square 
0.118605 
Standard Error 
6.683376 
Observations 
106 
Coefficients 
Standard Error 
t Stat 

Intercept 
2.231281662 
2.994660172 
0.745087 
MEDHHINC 
0.000128298 
4.61643E05 
2.779163 
BOY 
0.007329595 
0.004024301 
1.821334 
In Division 1, Median Housedhold Income is a significant predictor of computer points. To give an idea of the importance, the difference between the wealthiest and poorest school by median household income is $85,495 (Hudson vs. Toledo Waite.) According to the regression, this income difference should account for 10.9689 average computer points. Cincinnati Colerain leads Div 1 over the past 5 years with an annual average computer point score of 31.90. By looking at these figures, it is obvious that poorer districts such as Waite, East Tech, Hughes, Shaw, Glenville (!) Lincoln West, and Withrow are at a great disadvantage to wealthier districts like Hudson, Coffman, Sycamore, Solon, the Lakotas, and Mason.
Divsion 2
Regression Statistics 

Multiple R 
0.429590197 

R Square 
0.184547737 

Adjusted R Square 
0.169161845 

Standard Error 
5.379288857 

Observations 
109 

Coefficients 
Standard Error 
t Stat 

Intercept 
1.446683254 
3.42495305 
0.4224 
MEDHHINC 
0.00015701 
3.98183E05 
3.943166 
BOY 
0.014046843 
0.007697488 
1.824861 
The impact of wealth in Division 2 appears similar to the impact shown in Division 1. In Div 2, the difference between wealthiest and poorest is $70,317 (Lewis Center Olentangy vs. Cincinnati Taft.) This should account for a difference of 11.04 average points per annum. In Division 2, the top per annum average points was by far and away Avon Lake with an average per year of 37.7. When one considers that second place pointgenerator was Dublin Scioto with 23.4, the importance of the socioeconomic factor is certainly displayed. The poorest districts in Division 2 were Taft, Chaney, CentralHower, Franklin, Cleveland Hts, and Walnut Hills. The wealthiest in Div 2 were Olentangy, Sprinboro, Revere, Kings, Nordonia, and Loveland.
Division 3
Regression Statistics 

Multiple R 
0.238459332 

R Square 
0.056862853 

Adjusted R Square 
0.039067812 

Standard Error 
5.700799726 

Observations 
109 

Coefficients 
Standard Error 
t Stat 

Intercept 
2.332544986 
3.452366778 
0.675636 
MEDHHINC 
8.77337E05 
5.18012E05 
1.693661 
BOY 
0.015272042 
0.010046409 
1.520149 
The regression indicates that in this Division, median household income is not a significant predictor of football success.
Division 4
Regression Statistics 

Multiple R 
0.043230298 

R Square 
0.001868859 

Adjusted R Square 
0.01770234 

Standard Error 
5.827155216 

Observations 
105 

Coefficients 
Standard Error 
t Stat 

Intercept 
9.281145356 
2.823656484 
3.286924 
MEDHHINC 
5.89801E06 
4.75838E05 
0.12395 
BOY 
0.003751712 
0.00945958 
0.396604 
The regression indicates that in this Division, median household income is not a significant predictor of football success.
Division 5
Regression Statistics 

Multiple R 
0.174441727 

R Square 
0.030429916 

Adjusted R Square 
0.011230508 

Standard Error 
4.579303051 

Observations 
104 

Coefficients 
Standard Error 
t Stat 

Intercept 
5.781853435 
2.57507344 
2.245316 
MEDHHINC 
1.50411E05 
5.10576E05 
0.29459 
BOY 
0.023675491 
0.013453678 
1.759778 
The regression indicates that in this Division, median household income is not a significant predictor of football success.
Division 6
Regression Statistics 

Multiple R 
0.136931279 

R Square 
0.018750175 

Adjusted R Square 
0.002581343 

Standard Error 
4.335663244 

Observations 
95 

Coefficients 
Standard Error 
t Stat 

Intercept 
4.161648698 
2.452565533 
1.696855 
MEDHHINC 
7.74918E05 
5.87408E05 
1.319217 
BOY 
6.37312E06 
0.004943348 
0.001289 
The regression indicates that in this Division, median household income is not a significant predictor of football success.
Return to home of socioeconomic factors
Return to home of Ohio High School studies
Ohio Sports Geography Discussion Board
Any questions, comments, suggestions, or corrections: email me