The problem
JBU Athletics wanted more Traditional Undergraduate (TUG) students at games. The study set out to learn how students perceive JBU athletics, what influences whether they attend, and how well current promotions and incentives work.
Dataset & context
A survey built in Microsoft Forms and reviewed by the university's Institutional Review Board. It had agreement-scale and open-ended questions plus demographics. The survey went by email to a random selection of TUG students.
Methodology
- Calculated the required sample size, adjusted for the finite population: 105 responses.
- Screened 112 responses down to 110 valid ones.
- Tested seven hypotheses: paired t-tests comparing drivers, independent t-tests by gender, and one-way ANOVA by class standing.
- Read open-ended answers for recurring themes.
Tools
- Microsoft Forms
- Excel
- RStudio
- PowerPoint
Key analysis
| # | Comparison | p-value | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Food incentives vs. team performance | 0.200 | Not significant |
| 2 | Food incentives vs. knowledge of sport | 0.004 | Significant |
| 3 | Team performance vs. knowledge of sport | 0.040 | Significant |
| 4 | Knowledge of sport, by gender | 0.089 | Not significant |
| 5 | Food incentives, by class | 0.389 | Not significant |
| 6 | Team performance, by gender | 0.008 | Significant |
| 7 | Team performance, by class | 0.795 | Not significant |
Findings
- Food incentives ranked as the top attendance factor, followed by team performance and knowledge of the sport.
- Men were significantly more likely than women to say team performance drives their attendance (4.22 vs. 3.69).
- Class standing made no significant difference.
- Open-ended answers kept returning to “good” and “friends.” Attendance is social.
Business implication
Recommendations for the Athletics department: run targeted follow-up testing to learn exactly how each factor drives attendance, and use athletes as approachable ambassadors who build community around games. The social pull of “friends” is a marketing lever.
Final result
A full research report and client presentation that identified the leading attendance drivers and a plan for follow-up research.
What I learned: survey questions steer the whole study. Some questions were ambiguous, which limited what the hypothesis tests could say, and a few objectives weren't fully met. Next time I'd sharpen the questions, keep tighter focus on the objectives, and aim for more precise findings.
