Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Examines the link between financial inputs and winning percentage in NCAA FBS football, suggesting indirect effects via performance.
Purpose This study examines whether head coach scheduled pay, football program investment, and an in-season performance indicator are associated with winning percentage in NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) football, and whether conference type moderates the program investment–performance relationship. The study additionally demonstrates how scalable, AI-assisted data integration can support reproducible sport management research. Design/methodology/approach Using 1,373 team-season observations across thirteen competitive seasons (2010–2019 and 2022–2024), the study implements a reproducible data integration workflow that programmatically retrieves multi-level game data via Python APIs, engineers features and harmonizes identifiers in R, and stores integrated records in a relational SQLite database. Winning percentage serves as the dependent variable. Ordinary least squares (OLS) regression models evaluate the direct effects of coach pay, program spending, and season-average scoring margin, as well as a spending × conference interaction term to test moderation. Findings Regression results indicate that coach pay and program spending are positively associated with winning percentage in separate baseline models, while scoring margin exhibits a substantially stronger effect. In the full specification including all predictors simultaneously, the effects of financial inputs attenuate substantially and are weak or non-significant, suggesting that financial resources operate primarily through improvements in on-field performance rather than through a direct independent pathway. The interaction between spending and conference type is not statistically significant. Originality/value By integrating theory-driven hypotheses with a reproducible, AI-assisted data workflow spanning over a decade of FBS seasons, this study contributes to the intersection of sport finance, analytics, and data-driven decision-making in intercollegiate athletics, while offering a replicable methodological framework for future multi-source sport management research.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Han et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: