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 |
4.61643E-05 |
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 |
3.98183E-05 |
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 point-generator was Dublin Scioto with 23.4, the importance of the socioeconomic factor is certainly displayed. The poorest districts in Division 2 were Taft, Chaney, Central-Hower, 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 |
8.77337E-05 |
5.18012E-05 |
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 |
5.89801E-06 |
4.75838E-05 |
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 |
-1.50411E-05 |
5.10576E-05 |
-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 |
7.74918E-05 |
5.87408E-05 |
1.319217 |
|
BOY |
6.37312E-06 |
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: e-mail me