THE IMPACT OF PRACTICE FACILITY INVESTMENTS ON COMPETITIVE SUCCESS FOR NCAA D1 MEN'S GOLF PROGRAMS

This study examines the relationship between practice facility upgrades and competitive success in Division I men's collegiate golf, measured by adjusted team scoring average. Using a multiple linear regression model applied to 606–810 team-season observations across 91 programs in the top eight NCAA Division I conferences from 2015 to 2023, the study found that programs completing a qualifying practice facility upgrade (defined as a construction or renovation project valued at $1 million or more) scored approximately 0.36 strokes lower per round than those that had not (B = -0.355, p < .001), after controlling for conference or geographic region, academic rank, All-Americans, NCAA Tournament appearance, on-campus course, conference championship, national championship, and coaching changes. A supplemental paired samples t-test using 13 programs with both pre- and post-upgrade scoring data confirmed a statistically significant mean improvement of 0.756 strokes per round (t(12) = 5.011, p < .001, Cohen's d = 1.390), indicating a very large effect size. A descriptive supplemental analysis of 19 programs with available investment data found that lower-investment upgrades (under $5 million) produced comparable on-course scoring improvements to higher-investment projects ($5 million or more), suggesting that the act of completing a meaningful upgrade, regardless of magnitude, may be the primary driver of improvement. These findings support the Resource-Based View (RBV) framework, which posits that valuable, rare, and imperfectly imitable resources generate sustained competitive advantages. The results also align with and provide quantitative support for qualitative coaching sentiments documented in prior literature. Geographic region and conference affiliation were among the strongest structural predictors, with Northeast and Midwest programs scoring significantly worse than Southeast programs, underscoring the competitive disadvantage faced by programs in cold-weather climates. These findings have implications for athletic directors, donors, and coaches in terms of data-driven facility investment decision-making.