Poster Session

The in-persion poster session is scheduled for 11:30-13:30 on Saturday, Oct. 8, 2022. This is the only session of the event that cannot be broadcasted. The poster session also serves as a social networking opportunity. We invite submissions from all, especially students, working on sports analytics.

Submission Instructions

  • The submission has been closed.
  • Keep your poster size 36 inch by 24 inch or smaller.
  • Some templates and R packages for creating posters with RMarkdown may be useful.
  • After submission, share an image of poster at the Twitter show using tag #UCSAS2022. This allows more visibility of the posters before they are presented at the symposium and gives the judges more time to review them.
    See instructions. If you do not have a Twitter account, please sign up one. These instructions assume that you are posting from a computer, not a mobile device.
    • Take screen shot (or export as PNG images) for each of the four slides.
    • Log into your twitter account.
    • Click the "image" icon (the first button), and select the four images to upload (in the right order).
    • Write a single-tweet highlight of your poster that clearly states the key finding with tag #UCSAS2022.
    • Click "Tweet".
    Once posted, your tweet will be retweeted by @UConnSAS.

Student Presenter Travel Support

A limited number of student travel supports of $500 each are available from a National Science Foundation conference grant. Please indicate application for travel support when submitting your poster abstract. Full consideration will be given to those submitted by Friday, September 23, 2022. We need time to get payment approval. Your travel expense will be reimbursed for up to $500.

Student Poster Award

  • Posters submitted by students enter a Student Poster Award competition.
  • The poster review committee scores the student posters (see criteria below).
  • The Student Poster Award will be presented at the closing ceremony.

Student Poster Evaluation Criteria

The evaluation should focus on four key points:

  • Motivation: a clearly presented answer to “Why do we care?”
  • Innovation: a clearly presented answer to “Why is this new or different?
  • Execution: a clearly presented answer to “How well did they succeed?”
  • Contribution: a clearly presented answer to “What did they leave behind?

Each of those four facets is worth 10 “points”, for 40 points total. Scores for each facet are “free form”, but all 4 must be considered independently. Some aspects to consider for each of the above:

  • Motivation:
    • Is it clear what problem is being tackled?
    • Is the problem “important” to the community?
    • If so, Is it clear from the poster why it’s an important consideration?
  • Innovation:
    • Is something novel? (The approach, the results, the problem space, etc.? Not all need to be, but something should be!)
    • Is how this fits in the broader context of what came before clearly stated?
    • Are potential limitations presented openly?
  • Execution:
    • Is it clear what the result of the work is (regardless of its significance or “success”)?
    • Does this result improve the state-of-the-art (note: validating prior work or aggregating previous results, etc. certainly qualifies!)
    • Are the “results” validated somehow, and do you “trust” them?
  • Contribution:
    • Is there some artifact “left behind” (source is best, but web apps, etc. qualify)
    • Could you validate or reproduce this work if you wanted to?
    • Do you feel the poster and leave-behinds help build and foster further engagement? (i.e. are they good teaching tools, or have other hooks that will persist past the conference?)