Poor shooting percentages in recent men\'s DI basketball Final Four games have caused many to question decisions made by the NCAA concerning the layout of the court used for the Final Four. While domed football stadiums have long been used for the Final Four, beginning with the 2009 Final Four the NCAA has required that: i) the court be raised, ii) the entire stadium seating capacity be used (that is, large curtains cannot be erected to seal off portions of the stadium), and iii) temporary seats be installed on the football field around the court to accommodate more students from the participating schools. Players and coaches complain that the resulting dome shooting environment (depth perception, sight lines, etc.) is vastly different from that in the arenas in which players are accustomed to playing. This Excel file NCAA Men\'s Final Four Shooting Percentages shows the 72 team shooting percentages in all Final Four games from 2000 to 2011. Use the data from 2000-2008 and the data from 2009-2011 to calculate a 90% confidence interval for %u03BCpre2009 - %u03BC2009+, the difference in the mean team Final Four shooting percentages before and after the venue changes made by the NCAA. Note: Calculate sample means to 3 decimal place and sample standard deviations to 4 decimal places. % lower bound % upper bound Field Goal Shooting PercentageTeamYearGame 55.9Mich St2000Final 55.9Florida2000Final 55.9Mich St2000Semi 55.9Wisconsin2000Semi 55.9Florida2000Semi 55.9N Carolina2000Semi 55.9Arizona2001SemiST DEVST Error 55.9Mich St2001Semi5.72423E-146.74607E-15 55.9Duke2001Semi 55.9Maryland2001Semi 55.9Duke2001Final 55.9Arizona2001Final 55.9Indiana2002Final 55.9Oklahoma2002Semi 55.9Kansas2002Semi 55.9Maryland2002Final 55.9Maryland2002Semi 55.9Indiana2002Semi 55.9Marquette2003Semi 55.9Texas2003Semi 55.9Kansas2003Final 55.9Syracuse2003Final 55.9Kansas2003Semi 55.9Syracuse2003Final 55.9Georgia Tech2004Final 55.9Duke2004Semi 55.9UConn2004Final 55.9Oklahoma St2004Semi 55.9Georgia Tech2004Semi 55.9UConn2004Semi 55.9Michigan St2005Semi 55.9Illinois2005Final 55.9Louisville2005Semi 55.9Illinois2005Semi 55.9N Carolina2005Semi 55.9N Carolina2005Final 55.9LSU2006Semi 55.9UCLA2006Final 55.9Geo Mason2006Semi 55.9UCLA2006Semi 55.9Florida2006Semi 55.9Florida2006Final 55.9UCLA2007Semi 55.9Ohio St2007Semi 55.9Ohio St2007Final 55.9Georgetown2007Semi 55.9Florida2007Final 55.9N Carolina2008Semi 55.9UCLA2008Semi 55.9Memphis2008Final 55.9Memphis2008Semi 55.9Kansas2008Final 55.9Kansas2008Semi 55.9Florida2008Semi 55.9Villanova2009Semi 55.9Michigan St2009Final 55.9N Carolina2009Semi 55.9UConn2009Semi 55.9Michigan St2009Semi 55.9N Carolina2009Final 55.9Butler2010Semi 55.9Butler2010Final 55.9W Virginia2010Semi 55.9Michigan St2010Semi 55.9Duke2010Final 55.9Duke2010Semi 55.9Butler2011Final 55.9Kentucky2011Semi 55.9Uconn2011Final 55.9Butler2011Semi 55.9VCU2011Semi 55.9UConn2011Semi Solution 2000-2008: sample mean,x1=43.400 sample standard deviation,s1=6.4241 sample size,n1=54 20.

1. Poor shooting percentages in recent men's DI basketball Final Four games have caused many to
question decisions made by the NCAA concerning the layout of the court used for the Final
Four. While domed football stadiums have long been used for the Final Four, beginning with the
2009 Final Four the NCAA has required that: i) the court be raised, ii) the entire stadium seating
capacity be used (that is, large curtains cannot be erected to seal off portions of the stadium), and
iii) temporary seats be installed on the football field around the court to accommodate more
students from the participating schools.
Players and coaches complain that the resulting dome shooting environment (depth perception,
sight lines, etc.) is vastly different from that in the arenas in which players are accustomed to
playing.
This Excel file NCAA Men's Final Four Shooting Percentages shows the 72 team shooting
percentages in all Final Four games from 2000 to 2011. Use the data from 2000-2008 and the
data from 2009-2011 to calculate a 90% confidence interval for %u03BCpre2009 -
%u03BC2009+, the difference in the mean team Final Four shooting percentages before and
after the venue changes made by the NCAA.
Note: Calculate sample means to 3 decimal place and sample standard deviations to 4 decimal
places.
% lower bound
% upper bound
Field Goal Shooting PercentageTeamYearGame
55.9Mich St2000Final
55.9Florida2000Final
55.9Mich St2000Semi
55.9Wisconsin2000Semi

2. 55.9Florida2000Semi
55.9N Carolina2000Semi
55.9Arizona2001SemiST DEVST Error 55.9Mich St2001Semi5.72423E-146.74607E-15
55.9Duke2001Semi
55.9Maryland2001Semi
55.9Duke2001Final
55.9Arizona2001Final
55.9Indiana2002Final
55.9Oklahoma2002Semi
55.9Kansas2002Semi
55.9Maryland2002Final
55.9Maryland2002Semi
55.9Indiana2002Semi
55.9Marquette2003Semi
55.9Texas2003Semi
55.9Kansas2003Final
55.9Syracuse2003Final
55.9Kansas2003Semi
55.9Syracuse2003Final

3. 55.9Georgia Tech2004Final
55.9Duke2004Semi
55.9UConn2004Final
55.9Oklahoma St2004Semi
55.9Georgia Tech2004Semi
55.9UConn2004Semi
55.9Michigan St2005Semi
55.9Illinois2005Final
55.9Louisville2005Semi
55.9Illinois2005Semi
55.9N Carolina2005Semi
55.9N Carolina2005Final
55.9LSU2006Semi
55.9UCLA2006Final
55.9Geo Mason2006Semi
55.9UCLA2006Semi
55.9Florida2006Semi
55.9Florida2006Final

4. 55.9UCLA2007Semi
55.9Ohio St2007Semi
55.9Ohio St2007Final
55.9Georgetown2007Semi
55.9Florida2007Final
55.9N Carolina2008Semi
55.9UCLA2008Semi
55.9Memphis2008Final
55.9Memphis2008Semi
55.9Kansas2008Final
55.9Kansas2008Semi
55.9Florida2008Semi
55.9Villanova2009Semi
55.9Michigan St2009Final
55.9N Carolina2009Semi
55.9UConn2009Semi
55.9Michigan St2009Semi
55.9N Carolina2009Final

5. 55.9Butler2010Semi
55.9Butler2010Final
55.9W Virginia2010Semi
55.9Michigan St2010Semi
55.9Duke2010Final
55.9Duke2010Semi
55.9Butler2011Final
55.9Kentucky2011Semi
55.9Uconn2011Final
55.9Butler2011Semi
55.9VCU2011Semi
55.9UConn2011Semi

13. Solution
2000-2008:
sample mean,x1=43.400
sample standard deviation,s1=6.4241
sample size,n1=54

14. 2009-2011:
sample mean,x1=38.900
sample standard deviation,s1=7.5556
sample size,n1=18
90% confidence so alpha,a=0.10
degree of freedom, df=n1 + n2 - 2 = 70
t(a/2,df) = t(0.05,70) = 1.6669
sqrt((s1^2/n1)+(s2^2/n2)) = 1.9838
1.6669*1.9838 = 3.3069
(x1-x2) = 4.5000
confidence interval:
4.5 +/- 3.3069
% lower bound = 1.1931
% upper bound = 7.8069