women s march madness l.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Women’s March Madness PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Women’s March Madness

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 29

Women’s March Madness - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

Presenters: Molly Pickering Lauren DouBrava Tennille Moten Hugh Ferry. Women’s March Madness. Analyzing NCAA Women’s March Madness Tournament.

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

Women’s March Madness

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Presentation Transcript
    1. Presenters: Molly Pickering Lauren DouBrava Tennille Moten Hugh Ferry Women’s March Madness Analyzing NCAA Women’s March Madness Tournament

    2. “Over the last two decades, sports have become synonymous with media. Except for politics, no other institution in American society has been so clearly dominated by media logic” (Altheide, D. & Snow, R., 1979, pg 217).

    3. Topical Areas • Introduction: why when • Purpose statement • Theory • Research questions • Methods: How • Setting: Where • Results • Discussion and Conclusion

    4. No one cares about women’s sports Tough high speed Action Atmosphere!

    5. Well, let’s take a quick look and see what the numbers say • Of the 26 years there has been a women’s tournament 16 have been sold out • 2007 marked the 15th consecutive sell out • That means the final four has sold out every year since 1993 in Atlanta • 5 426 201 people have attended Division I past championship games • All information and numbers retrieved from http://www.ncaamarchmadness2008.com/womens/index.aspx

    6. Still not convinced?

    7. Who needs tickets?

    8. Television • Last year’s women’s championship averaged a 2.30 household rating on ESPN (TN vs Rutgers) • According to Nielsen Media Research a single national household ratings point represents 1%, or 1, 102,000 households.(as of September 26 2005) 2.3X1102000= 2.535million viewers • http://www.nielsenmedia.com; http://www.ncaamarchmadness2008.com/womens/index.aspx

    9. I think we have something here • "It's gotten a lot better in terms of parity, skill of players and fan interest over the years," he said. "I'm personally very pleased. I see this as a growth sport for the NCAA." (CBSSportsLine.com ) -Myles Brand, NCAA president April 3rd 2007 • This is during an announcement of the moving of women’s final four

    10. SO WHAT?

    11. Purpose • The purpose of our study is to analyze and synthesize the 2007 NCAA Division I women’s basketball tournament broadcasts and compare the educational representation with the commercial representation.

    12. Research questions • Is there evidence of a dominant logic in the broadcast of NCAA division 1 women’s basketball? • Are the universities adequately and fairly represented in the broadcasts?

    13. Theoretical framework • Institutional Logics belief systems that essentially work to constitute appropriate and acceptable action. (Southall et. al. 2006)

    14. For Example • McDonalds, arguably the most recognizable business in the world • Operates around the world under one constant logic • The menu is standardized to facilitate rapid decisions Denzin & Lincoln, 1994

    15. ESPN is no exception to the logic rule • We argue that ESPN, one of the two institutions this study is constructed around, is no different. • No matter what the content being broadcasted, the menu is more or less the same, just like McDonald’s, no matter where the location, the menu is pretty much the same.

    16. Mission statements • Our purpose is to govern competition in a fair, safe, equitable and sportsmanlike manner, and to integrate intercollegiate athletics into higher education so that the educational experience of the student-athlete is paramount. • To serve sports fans where ever sports are watched, listened to, discussed, debated, read about, or played... To serve sport fans worldwide…the aggressive pursuit of new ideas, audience growth and building shareholder value (NCAA.org, 2007) (espn.com, 2007)

    17. Methods • Content analysis • Content analysis has been a popular tool in cultural studies and mass communications research • Simply put, content analysis isolates, counts and interprets themes, issues, and recurring motifs occurring in the data. Neuendorf, 2002’ Manning, Cullum-Swan, 1994; Denzin & Lincoln 1994

    18. Methods • Semiotic Analysis • Semiotic information can be anything from Morse code, etiquette, mathematics, music and even highway signs • SEMIOTICS AT OUR DESPOSAL: • Organizational documents • Public statements • Handbooks Manning & Cullum-Swan, 1994

    19. Intercoder reliabilityScott’s Pi (π) & Cohen’s Kappa (κ) • 4 games (40% of total) used for intercoder reliability • Surpassed recommended 15% • Our results ranged from .98-1.00. We passed! -Neuendorf, 2001

    20. Coding Instrument • ADV: Standard commercial • NCAA-PSA: Educational mission • CORP-PSA: No mention of product, however the product is in commercial • GR-ADV: Bottom of screen, banner across the screen • GR-ADV-V: Graphic on screen accompanied with verbal announcing of brand/institution name by announcers • ACA-GR: Player profile, major, GPA etc. • ED: Educational message, announcement of scholastic achievement, or failures of players

    21. Research Setting • National Collegiate Athletic Association • Campus stadiums and coliseums • ESPN broadcasts

    22. Results

    23. Playing with data

    24. Broadcasting content analysis revealed:

    25. During the Commercial break

    26. You are telling me that Tennessee and Rutgers are universities??!!

    27. Discussion • Though educational messages were less then 1%, they provide great points for discussion • “Nice shot for a fashion major” • -The best thing she could do is go pro in Europe, she won’t be able to graduate by 2008 • Clearly, even when the educational aspect was brought into the commentary, it is questionable • Media Logic/commercial logic dominate, perhaps we should just pay these players

    28. Conclusion • Purpose was to analyze and synthesize the 2007 NCAA Division I women’s basketball tournament broadcasts and compare the educational representation with the commercial representation. • Questions: Is there evidence of a dominant logic in the broadcast of NCAA division 1 women’s basketball?-A: MEDIA/COMMERCIAL • Are the universities adequately and fairly represented in the broadcasts? –A:Not sure…this is where we should go next. • What else can be done? In-depth contrast with Southall et al.

    29. References • Altheide, D. L. & Snow, R. P. (1979). Media Logic. Beverly Hills: Sage. • Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage. • Manning, P.K., Cullum-Swan, B. (1994). Narrative, Content, and Semiotic Analysis. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. (pp. 463-477). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. • NCAA Presidential Address Retrieved October 2 2007 from http://www.cbssportsline.com • Nielson Media: http://www.nielsenmedia.com; • Neuendorf, K. A. (2001). • Southall, R. M, Nagel, M. S., Amis, J., & Southall, C. (in press).A method to March Madness: Institutional logics and the 2006 National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I men’s basketball tournament.Journal of Sport Management. • The Women’s Final Four Retrieved Oct. 2 2007 from http://www.ncaamarchmadness2008.com/womens/index.aspx