Stop the Presses!

Suzanne L. Cooke, United States Sports Academy

Abstract

As professional athletes become increasingly frustrated with journalists, they are bypassing them with more than just statements of “no comment.” Instead, they are posting their own messages and updates on personal websites and Twitter accounts. And athletes are not the only entity demonstrating a decreased trust and reliance upon traditional journalism.

To begin with, technological advances have severely altered the manner in which information is communicated. The rapid growth of internet sites and other networking platforms is at the center of this change, offering immediate access to information for anyone who can type the word “google.” Further, blogging, texting, and tweeting have created a plethora of sources from which one can gain access to sports information. This has created major challenges for anyone working in the field of sports journalism.

Unfortunately, increased accessibility does not always lead to increased accountability. In fact, this enlarged market has led to decreased reliability as journalists feel augmented pressure to provide breaking news and headlines to gain public attention and revenue. Consequently, journalists are increasingly sensationalizing and dramatizing the personal lives of athletes in an effort to stay competitive.

As a result, this has caused a noticeable breakdown in the relationships between journalists and professional athletes; what was once a harmonious association is now caustic. As the trust between the two continues to dissipate, professional athletes are taking matters into their own hands, literally. They are tweeting and texting, updating their blogs and websites, all from the access of a phone in the palm of their hand. They are increasingly bypassing the need and desire to talk with journalists. As this battle rages on between journalists and professional athletes, technological advances will continue to aid the fight of the athletes.

Unfortunately, the express emergence of innovative, technological methods of communication have caused undocumented pressure to deliver a fresh, innovate story that will sell, which ultimately affects the sound principles of journalism – ethics, accuracy, and professionalism. As the presses start rolling to a halt, it is clear that any sports journalist refusing to follow the road of technological advances will ultimately fall behind the curve.

Introduction

This paper will examine the rapid evolution of traditional sports journalism. It will begin by suggesting a variety of driving forces fueling the shift from traditional journalism of pen and print, to click and internet. Then, it will discuss the implications this shift has upon the realm of sport; for it is not only journalists who are affected, but also professional athletes, sports organizations, and fans alike. As technological advances progress, and trusting, ethical relationships between journalists and athletes regress, there is danger that the presses may indeed come to a complete stop.

Definitions of Terms

Blog: a type of website, usually maintained by an individual with regular entries of commentary, descriptions of events, or other material such as graphics or video.
ESPN: Entertainment and Sports Programming Network
Facebook: Website for people to create personal pages on which they can post pictures and all manner of personal information and communicate with others.
TMZ: “Thirty Mile Zone” A term which originated in the 1960s due to growth of ‘on location’ shoots in Hollywood. A “thirty mile zone” was established to monitor the regulations of these shoots. Now, the acronym is used as a celebrity news source compromised of paparazzi who will report every minute detail of celebrities’ personal lives.
Twitter: Twitter.com is a social networking and “micro-blogging” website which enables users to write short messages to each other.

Review of Literature

Traditional, old-fashioned sports journalism highlighted the events of a game and the individual performances of athletes. People eagerly awaited the delivery of the morning paper to read the game summary and analyze the box scores; however times have changed. Not only are people no longer waiting for the newspaper to be delivered to their front door step, they are not even purchasing the paper at all. “Following an average drop of 10.6% in the last 12 months, daily newspaper circulation has fallen to a pre-World War II low of an estimated 39.1 million; which means only 12.9% of the U.S. population buys a daily newspaper,” (Mutter, 2009). The main reason for the decline is due to technological advances that allow instant access to every score, highlight, and play-by-play via internet websites, postings, and blogs. Certainly, the dying reliance upon the newspaper and printed word is causing a major change in the field of sports journalism; and there are a number of forces causing the presses to come to a halt.

Increased Accessibility & Immediacy

The most influential impetus behind the change in the field of sports journalism is the evolution of technology. There is no doubt we are living in a society bombarded by an explosion of mass media, and a demand to access information at a faster pace. This is proven by the fact that as newspaper and magazine sales continue to decrease, there is an immense increase in internet sites. The internet has revolutionized the world of sports journalism by providing immediate access through blogs, instant messaging, tweeting, Facebook, and a plethora of other platforms. Ultimately, the factors of increased accessibility and immediacy have forced traditional newspaper journalists to conform to a new system, or lose their position.

Further, due to the increased access of sporting events via the internet, satellite, and other advances in technology, a mere review of sporting events and scores is no longer as important to audiences. As Greg Bowers, an assistant professor at the Missouri School of Journalism stated, “The old reason for buying the paper is gone. What journalists are trying to do is create a new reason for buying the paper,” (Brown, 2008). This shift in focus, caused by pressure to compete with the immediacy and accessibility of the internet has caused the traditional newspaper presses to stop rolling.

Increased Competition & Pressure

To begin with, the increased market of media outlets has significantly increased the level of competition among journalists. In order to stay competitive, journalists began reporting on a variety of aspects that were only loosely, if at all, connected to the professional sports game. They began intruding upon aspects such as the owner’s hiring decisions, manager’s coaching decisions, and most importantly the personal lives of professional players.

In addition, in an attempt to stay competitive, newspaper and magazine editors began placing increased pressure upon journalists. In order to compete with the internet culture of reporting, journalists are increasingly being encouraged to look for stories outside the lines and boundaries of which they were traditionally accustomed. As Michael Rand, sportswriter for the Minneapolis Star, stated, “The 24/7 nature of news, an evolutionary trait that’s ossified over the past 20 years, compels reporters to dig ceaselessly for novel information, rather than hone stories,” (Rowe, 2008). In addition, many sports editors are forcing journalists to operate in a different manner by requiring them to create blogs online in addition to their traditional reporting. Further, to show the importance of these blogs, the success of the journalists is often evaluated by the number of “hits” or responses the blog incites. Due to the fact journalists are evaluated by this measure, they feel increased pressure to report on controversial issues that will attract the greatest audience. As a result, the pressure upon sports journalist to be the first to report breaking news began to cause a trend of irresponsible journalism.

Irresponsible Journalism

The simplicity of the concept of sports journalism is that it should be focused on sport; on the athletic talents of professional athletes, not their personal lives. Unfortunately, the increased competition and economic pressures have led to decreased ethics in reporting, as journalists are forced to develop the most controversial stories that will sell. Too often these stories are laden with sensationalism and scandal, and have the potential to tarnish an athletes’ reputation. Further, with the inception of numerous sport specific television stations, radio shows, magazines, and internet sites, a personal situation involving a professional team or athlete can be spread across the nation in a matter of seconds. “What has changed is the omnipresence of the technological mass media. What used to be whispered or spread through word-of-mouth is now available instantaneously to millions of people,” (Silverman, 1999). Therefore, the affects of irresponsible reporting on the personal lives of professional athletes can be extremely damaging.

For example, one newspaper, The News & Observer, did more harm than good in its coverage of the Duke Lacrosse scandal. Instead of focusing on the facts of the case, the newspaper caused additional conflict and controversy as it indulged in speculative information. Worse, the newspaper then blamed the players involved for not being available for interviews so they could print the truth. “We were hampered early on by the unwillingness of the players, their families or other representatives to speak with our reporters,” (Ham, 2007). Further, they went on to admit, “some of our coverage played to stereotypes, and a couple opinion columns drew sweeping conclusions too quickly.” This irresponsible reporting has been more and more widespread, as journalists compete with each other for the best story to attract attention and make revenue. Unfortunately, this type of journalism results in more sensationalized, opinionated stories rather than fact-filled reporting.

Just the Facts

Another problem with the current trends of sports journalists is that instead of focusing on providing necessary information, they take provocative stances on issues, speculate details, and share more opinions than facts. One example is the case with NFL player Sean Taylor, who after being shot, journalists decided to focus on his negative past and rap sheet to fill time until more information was made available about the investigation of his death. Despite the claims of ESPN senior vice president and director, Vince Doria, who stated, “I don’t know how you could have ignored his past offenses, but the directive to shows was to take steps not to link that behavior to this incident,” (Schrieber, 2007). Apparently, no one received that memo. Instead, in the absence of facts, journalists filled the headlines with all of his past illegal behaviors, speculating the cause of his death. In the process, they tore apart the reputation of a dead man. One has to wonder how that reported negativity affected his family, and if the actions of journalists in this situation were truly responsible and ethical.

Societal Demands

Certainly, society is also to blame for the alteration of focus in the field of sports journalism. For, as a society, we yearn most for two types of media stories; those involving celebrities and those involving drama. Therefore, the arrests, club brawls, domestic violence, and extra-marital affairs by professional athletes are certain to peak our interest and draw our attention. As proof of the desire for this trend in journalism, it is these controversial stories that are given the most attention, never failing to make the front page headlines and nightly highlight reels. According to a study by Richard Lapchick, director of the Institute for Diversity an Ethics in Sports, “What we’ve seen is about 100 athletes a year, on average, arrested for violence against a woman and 75 for some form of recreational drugs. So roughly three times a week, you pick up a paper or watch TV, see something like that, and it creates an impression in people’s minds that there’s a pattern,” (Litke, 2006). This creates a negative image of athletes in the minds of society, and a distrust of journalists in the minds of athletes.

Professional Athletes Fed Up With Sports Journalists

Due to the reasons discussed above, an increasingly contentious relationship is developing between sports journalists and professional athletes. The recent situation with Tiger Woods serves as a poignant example of the conflict, as journalists bombarded into his personal life. Since the Woods predicament began, journalists have been shouting for Tiger to come forward, talk to them, and present his side of the story. Woods, however, has chosen to take a different approach and remain hidden and quiet; a move that has seemingly infuriated the media. In fact, Woods shared more information with the public through his own methods than he did through journalists. While he told reporters he was unavailable and had no comment, he communicated through posts on his Web site. Despite his silence, journalists have fought hard to create stories and report on Woods’ transgressions, as evidenced by reports from the News Coverage Index that report 6% of the entire world news was dedicated to Tiger’s situation the week the story broke. Further, journalists continue to follow Woods’ personal life as he admitted himself to a sex addiction recovery program, certainly a private matter, and none of the public’s business, but that has not stopped the published stories, and the continued invasion into his private life.

As Tiger quietly made a statement that he refuses to play into the media game, society must understand that this all is just a game; a game driven more by profit than ethics. This is evidenced by the fact that photographs of Tiger with another woman were first discovered over a year ago, but the media made a deal that in exchange for not publicizing the pictures Woods would do a cover story for Men’s Fitness magazine, (Goldstein, 2009). Therefore, if it were simply about reporting what is right instead of making a profit, the Woods story would have been leaked long ago. It seems all but perhaps one journalist understands and agrees. Jason Whitlock, reporter for FoxSports.com, was one of the few journalists to admit the media was in the wrong. “It’s important for the public to know that the media act dishonestly all the time. We’re far more phony than Tiger Woods ever could be,” (Whitlock, 2009). He further admits, “This whole affair highlights why the mainstream media have lost the public’s trust. We don’t deserve it. We’re controlled by hidden agendas,” (Whitlock, 2009).

Effects of the New Game Plan

The two most detrimental effects of the changes occurring in the field of sports journalism are the decrease in accuracy of sports journalism, and the deterioration of the relationship between journalists and athletes.

Accuracy in Jeopardy

One result of “searching for a story that will sell,” is that journalists often report more opinion than fact. A recent survey confirms an “observed trend in the media around the world of almost a race to the bottom in terms of superficial content in sports coverage focusing on personalities, events and gossip rather than much if any serious content, and almost nothing on the political, economic and social aspects of sport,” (Davies, 2002).

An additional problem is the lack of concern by journalists when they report incorrect information. “In the olden days of newspapers, if you were wrong, you had to write a correction in the next day’s paper and go to the editor’s office and explain why and how you screwed up. That correction also showed up on your annual review. The only repercussions today is a lack of credibility,” (Davies, 2002). Ultimately, there are many concerns causing feelings of resentment and caution when it comes to the recent trends of mass media sport reporting. Even if journalists report erroneous information, the more sensationalized, the greater audience attracted. Therefore, journalists are rewarded for reporting quickly, regardless of the accuracy.

In addition, accuracy will continue to be compromised as journalists now have to compete with a whole new beast of independent bloggers. As almost anyone can post a blog, the lines have become blurred as to who is the reporter and who is the audience. Ultimately, the influx of bloggers impacts the accuracy and credibility of traditional, professional journalists. In fact, major problems with accuracy have already begun to appear, as evidenced by the erroneous, premature Twitter message that stated NFL player Chris Henry had died, when in fact he was still alive at the time. Compounding the problem is that “Gossip Web sites that don’t reveal their sources and tabloids better known for stories on extraterrestrial sightings have apparently become reliable sources of information,” stated Chris Zelkovich, writer for the Toronto Star. Further, as new sites begin to emerge, such as the innovative TMZ sports specific gossip blog, sports journalists will have to fight even harder to keep a sense of trust and accuracy in reporting. “This new TMZ publication could be an “industry game changer that could somewhat destabilize ESPN’s complete dominance over the field of the sports blogosphere,” (O’Keefe).

Declining Ethics

Another aspect that has been affected by the shifts in sports journalism is the level of ethics among sports journalists who report upon the personal lives of professional athletes. While sports journalists continue to report negative stories about professional athletes, they neglect to understand the affects of their reporting. As a result of their pursuit to be first to report a story, or gain publicity, journalists end up tarnishing the images of professional athletes forever.

Surely, it would be considered irresponsible reporting if a sports journalist did not disclose an athlete’s negative behaviors that directly affected his sports performance. For example, when an athlete has admitted to using steroids, or other performance-enhancing drugs, the action directly affects their professional skills or job. However, if it has nothing to do with their sports-performance, then is it ethical to report it to the rest of the world? For example, the adulterous behavior of Tiger Woods is mortifying to many, but it does not directly involve, nor affect, his performance as a professional athlete. Regardless that one would be hard-pressed to find someone to condone his behavior, it is still part of his personal life that is none of the public’s business. However, as a result of the media continually reporting every detail of his private situation, sponsors were forced to cease their endorsement deals with Woods. They could not afford the potential negative publicity associated with him. As a result, Tiger will lose an estimated $110 million a year in endorsements, (Park, 2009).

Therefore, in the end, the media intrusion not only cost him his privacy, it also caused him to lose his reputation, his endorsements, and subsequently millions of dollars. It is hard to easily accept this, as the other side of the coin is that sports media and journalists profited millions off of their reporting. This further proves that journalists are more interested in profit than ethics. Tiger Woods’ golf swing earned him a number one rank in the world for all but 32 weeks of the past decade; however, due largely in part to the over-involvement of journalists, ironically the swing his wife took with a nine iron served as the impetus for landing him in the largest sand-trap of his life.

Severed Relationships

One major affect of the increased personal reporting of journalists is a breakdown in what was originally a harmonious relationship with professional athletes. It was a simple process – professional athletes played games, journalists reported on games, and fans were informed. In fact, it has been a well-known fact that journalists have developed unique, personal relationships with professional athletes. So unique, an unspoken agreement has been conjured in which journalists usually agree to turn a blind eye to extra-marital affairs, gambling, or other unethical behaviors. As explained by Tom Jolly, The Times’ sports editor, “The general policy is that we try to limit what we report to whether it affects on-field play,” (Calderone, 2007). As long as the action had nothing to do with the performance of the athlete on the field, it was off the record. Unfortunately, as times have changed, so has the focus of journalists and their relationship with professional athletes. One of the first examples to illustrate the change was a situation that occurred with MLB player, Alex Rodriguez. In 2007, a newspaper published a picture of Rodriguez out on the town with a woman who was not his wife. “When I saw it and heard it, it was like ‘Wow!’ This was very, very different from my own experience in covering teams. It felt like the line had been moved,” stated Buster Olney, a former Yankees beat reporter for The Times, (Calderone, 2007). Some reporters suggested the Rodriguez story broke the mold because he was generally not well-liked by reporters. Others propose it had to do with the fact he was the highest-paid player in baseball, yet not living up to team or fan expectations. Regardless of the reason for publishing the story, the information had nothing to do with his athletic performance or ability. Sports journalists invaded his private life simply to make a profit, with no concern for how it affected him. As evidenced by a spokeswoman from the newspaper that printed the story, Suzanne Halpin, “It was the biggest story in town last week, and we’re proud to have broken it,” (Calderone, 2007). As journalists find ways to rationalize and defend reporting of this nature, it is clear the lines of ethics are beginning to be crossed and the relationships between journalists and athletes will ultimately sever.

While it seems it would be advantageous for sport journalists and professional athletes to work with and depend on each other, the level of mistrust between the two only seems to increase. “Sports journalists are in the proverbial know, and they dispense with incredible vigor their judgments against the personal character of players and coaches,” (Rowe, 2008). Due to the fact that many journalists are increasingly crossing the lines with their content and level of reporting as they dig for stories, many athletes fear being misrepresented. An invasion of personal lives, characterized by false accusations, sham allegations, and rampant sensationalism create skepticism by athletes. As a result, the relationship between journalists and athletes begins to deteriorate. As Sports Illustrated states, “The clubs and the media, as if stuck in a bad marriage, have grown apart,” while Kansas City Royals’ pitcher David Cone said, “We feel like targets; a lot of times the media is looking for a reason to get on you. Negativity sells.” As journalists incessantly and greedily search for controversial issues, players become increasingly frustrated and furious at the invasion of their personal lives. Ultimately, this is leading to athletes taking matters into their own hands through the use of social networking sites.

Summary and Conclusions

Increase of Social Networking Sites

Ultimately, as the credibility of journalists continues to decline, a new generation of sports coverage is developing. Certainly, one of the most influential changes in the field of sports journalism is the increase of social networking. Social networking sites such as blogs, Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter are surging among all spheres of the population, and emerging as a powerfully influential trend in sports. In fact, frustrated athletes are utilizing these high-tech platforms as their own, more controlled, means of communication in order to avoid the traditional sources of implausible media. In addition, as these technological advances afford professional athletes greater access to audiences than traditional news sources, they continue to complicate the process for journalists.

First and foremost, social networking sites allow athletes to share their thoughts and feelings first-hand without having to go through traditional methods such as journalists. Some recent examples of athletes using the non-traditional media are Denver Broncos player, Brandon Marshall, who refused to talk to the media, but instead posted a blog on his website informing fans that it was time he left Denver. Likewise, former Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling used his blog to announce his retirement. In addition, NBA player Shaquille O’Neal reported most of the surrounding news of his trade through Twitter instead of using a traditional journalist.

In fact, Twitter is perhaps one of the most popular sites among professional athletes. Twitter acts as a type of social media database, allowing people to share brief messages and information; and its popularity is evidenced by the 1,382 percent increased visits between the years of 2008 and 2009. Further, while the service does not release numbers on how many people have signed up for the service, the media estimates put the number at around 6 million, (Valade, 2009). These numbers make Twitter the fastest growing member community destination. This increase in the use of networking sites will undoubtedly continue to decrease the use and need of traditional journalism.

Additional examples of the use of Twitter can be found through a variety of athletes. Fed up with drug allegations, Lance Armstrong did not want to talk to the media anymore. Instead, he sent out real-time messages on Twitter, including a time-sensitive post that French anti-doping authorities had dropped charges against him for failing to follow testing protocols, released before journalists had a chance to report it. In addition, NBA player, Kevin Love, used Twitter to announce his coach had been released. He was the first one to make the announcement, before any other media source.
Further, professional athletes are even using Twitter to promote their own personal websites. This can attract and lead fans to their sites where they have increased control as to the manner in which information is presented. It also affords athletes a chance to reply or refute stories journalists may present. In addition, professional athletes are increasingly able to expose themselves in a positive manner, attract fans, and gain publicity, which can lead to increased popularity and lucrative contract deals, something for which they used to rely upon traditional journalists. Ultimately, publicity sells, and professional athletes are making smart business moves with these new social networking platforms.

Even the professional leagues are using these new social networking sources. The NFL used Twitter to announce draft selections; the NHL used Twitter to reach over 234,000 people on opening night of the playoffs; and the NBA team, the Portland Trailblazers, credit Twitter to drawing more than 10,000 fans to a playoff rally, (Whiteside, 2009). In fact, most professional sports teams now have their own Twitter accounts which they use to promote ticket giveaways and other marketing campaigns. Even college programs are beginning to utilize Twitter as a major form of communication. “Social media presents a range of new opportunities and a complete increase in control of coverage for universities and professional sports teams,” (O’Keefe, 2009). This will ultimately affect the manner in which traditional journalists are used to report both professional and college athletics. As these organizations engage in their own forms of promoting themselves through social media, they can even gain increased revenue by selling ads on their own sites. Ultimately, this furthers that amount of competition journalists have to face, and pushes them farther into being obsolete.
Certainly, one of the main concerns among traditional media sources is that as the popularity of these social networking sites increase, the need for traditional media sources may decrease. “Celebrities are using social media and bypassing media gatekeepers,” (McCracken, 2009). This is especially true as the audience of Twitter has been proven to consist of a majority of adults. “Use of social networking by people aged 35 to 54 grew 60 percent in the last year,” (Miller, 2009). While traditional newspapers may not be hit as hard when teenagers, who never bought their newspaper, use these forms of technology, they do feel the impact when adults start blogging and tweeting instead of flipping the pages of a newspaper.

Conclusion

The profession of traditional sports journalism is on the brink of extinction. In fact, Fox Sports analyst, Jason Whitlock, recently made the claim that “ESPN killed sports journalism.” He believes the corporation was responsible for overpaying and showering the most talented sports writers with fame to the point in which they became more concerned about appearance than content, (Whitlock, 2009). Indeed, his analysis of the death of sports journalism is abundantly supported. Increased accessibility, competition, and pressure are at the core of the collapse of traditional sports journalism. In addition, irresponsible journalism, societal demands, and the increasing frustration of professional athletes have helped fuel the negative image of journalists. As a result, there has been a decline in ethics and professionalism, which has ultimately led to severed relationships with professional athletes and sporting organizations.

In addition to the driving forces mentioned above, technological advances continue to impact the field of sports journalism. The almost incalculable increase in the use of social networking sites allows anyone and everyone to post information, which is accessible 24/7. This saturated market impels an immense level of competition among journalists, forcing them to conform or become a nonentity. “The traditional game story died years ago. Offering depth and analysis and telling the behind-the-scenes stories is where sports journalism has gone. Whether it’s the right direction has yet to be determined,” (Brown, 2008). There is no doubt the business of sports journalism has been altered, and unless traditional journalists and newspaper organizations conform to the changes, the presses will undoubtedly roll slower and slower until they come to a complete stop.

References

Arango, T. (2009, April 27). Fall in newspaper sales accelerates to pass 7%. New York Times. Retrieved July 10, 2009, from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/business/media/28paper.html.

Barrett. W. (1994, January). Us vs. them: athletes and the media. USA Today. Retrieved July 1, 2009, from http://findarticles.com.

Brown, G. (2008). Truth be told. NCAA. Retrieved from http://www.ncaachampionmagazine.org/Championship%20Magazine/ChampionMagazineStory/Articles0708/tabid/84/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/164/Default.aspx.

Calderone, M. (2007, June 5). Hey, A-Rod! Smile! The New York Observer. Retrieved from http://www.observer.com

Cutbirth, J. (2010, January 2). Leach incident shows ESPN ethics stink. Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-cutbirth/leach-incident-shows-espn_b_409270.html.

Davies, R. (2002, November 11). Media power and responsibility in sport and globalization. Play the Game. Retrieved July 10, 2009, from http://playthegame.org.

Feinstein, J. (2007, July 24). Sports reporter discusses recent sports scandals. PBS. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/sports/july-dec07/scandals_07-24.html.

Ham, J. (2007, April 16). Media rehab and the Duke lacrosse case. Carolina Journal Online. Retrieved July 5, 2009, from http://www.carolinajournal.com/mediamangle/display_story.html?id=4011.

McCracken, E. (2009, December 21). Local professors discuss how the Tiger Woods, live controversies are changing the media game. Retrieved from http://www.flipsidepa.com.

Miller, C. (2009, August 25). Who’s driving twitter’s popularity? Not teens. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com.

Mutter, A. (2009, October 26). Record plunge: newspaper circ at pre-WWII low. Retrieved from http://newsosaur.com.

O’Keefe, C. (2009, December). Sports information directors beginning to value social media over mainstream coverage. Past the Press Box. Retrieved from http://www.pastthepressbox.com

Rice, J. (2009, June 29). Sports leagues as media moguls: what happens when the people we cover start to control the news? Nieman Journalism Lab. Retrieved from http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/06/sports-leagues-as-media-moguls-what-happens-when-the-people-we-cover-start-to-control-the-news/.

Rowe, M. (2008, April 3). How sports writing lost its game. Retrieved from http://www.utne.com

Schreiber, L. (2007, December 10). Proportion, perspective missing ingredients in news coverage. Retrieved July 1, 2009, from http://sports.espn.go.com.

Whitlock, J. (2009, December). Here’s truth behind Tiger Woods scandal. FoxSports. Retrieved from http://msn.foxsports.com

U.S. Sports Academy2013-11-25T17:55:19-06:00April 9th, 2010|Contemporary Sports Issues, Sports Management|Comments Off

A Choke-Up Grip Facilitates Faster Swing and Stride Times Without Compromising Bat Velocity and Bat Control

Submitted by: Coop DeRenne, Charles F. Morgan, Department of Kinesiology & Rehabilitation Science, University of Hawaii; Rafael F. Escamilla, Department of Physical Therapy, California State University, Sacramento, CA; Glenn S. Fleisig, American Sports Medicine Institute, Birmingham, AL

Abstract

This study investigated the relationship among hitting components and bat control during the normal and choke-up grip swings. Fourteen intercollegiate and professional baseball players were randomly assigned into five hitting groups. Within each group, the following four hitting components were computed to determine the relationship between bat control in two grip conditions (normal; choke-up): (1) Swing time (bat quickness), (2) stride time, (3) bat velocity, and (4) bat-ball contact accuracy. Results indicated significant differences (p =0.01) between choke-up and normal grips in swing time, stride time, and bat velocity. Players using the choke-up grip swing had significant less swing time and stride time than the normal grip swing. Results also indicated significant greater bat velocities (p = 0.01) with normal grip swings than the choke-up grip swings. In addition, further results indicated no significant differences (p = .90) between choke-up and normal grips in bat-ball accuracy. These findings suggest that the choke-up grip facilitates faster swing time and stride time without compromising bat velocity or contact accuracy.

Key words: bat control, bat quickness, stride time, accuracy.

Introduction

Historically, since major league baseball established its modern day roots in the early 1900’s, the best hitters in the game have studied hitting mechanics to improve their performances (Cobb, 1961; DeRenne, 2007; Gwynn, 1998; Lau, Glossbbrenner, & LaRussa; 1980; Williams, 1970). Though the early day great hall of fame hitters didn’t have the advantages of present day high-technology and research-generated information, the majority of those hitters and those of present day agree that by studying and applying swing kinematics will create greater bat control during competition (Alston & Weiskopf, 1972; Cobb, 1961; DeRenne, 2007; Gwynn, 1998; Williams, 1970). From the one of games early great hitters TyCobb (1961), to modern era hall of famer hitter Ted Williams (1970), to eight time major league batting champion and hall of fame hitter Tony Gwynn (1998) and finally to major league home run king great Barry Bonds, these great hitters share in the belief that increasing bat control is essential for successful hitting (Cobb, 1961; Gwynn, 1998; Williams, 1970).

As intercollegiate baseball evolved in the 29th Century mainly from major league influences, hall of fame intercollegiate head coaches such as Rod Dedeaux (Division I Coach of the 20th Century), John Scolinos (Division II Coach of the 21st Century), Skip Berkman (Division I NCAA Coach of the 1990 Decade), Ron Polk (1978), Jerry Kindall (2000) and Tony Gwynn (1998); and intercollegiate hitting coaches Dr. Coop DeRenne, (2007), All-American Jerry Kindall (2000), and Tony Gwynn (1998) also recognize the importance of increasing bat control in various offensive situations (e.g., two-strikes on the hitter, hit-and-run play, hit to opposite field) (Delmonico, 1996). Yet, ask any of these great managers or hitters to define bat control, and there would no common answer. Furthmore, when these highly successful intercollegiate hitters and coaches discuss the topic of bat control, the majority agrees that choking up on the bat will increase bat control (Berkow & Kaplan, 1992; Delmonico, 1996; DeRenne, 2007; Gwynn, 1998; Kindall & Winkin, 2000; Polk, 1978; Stallings, J. & Bennett, B. [Eds.], 2003). If in the opinion of these intercollegiate coaches that choking up on the bat is a hitting technique used specifically in various game offensive hitting situations to increase bat control, then it is important for all collegiate hitters, coaches, and hitting coaches to understand what is bat control and how is it improved.

Anecdotal opinions from intercollegiate head coaches and hitting coaches, suggest that increased bat control is a result of choking up on the bat that may or may not aid in increasing bat speed, or bat swing time (“bat quickness “) (Delmonico, 1996; DeRenne, 2007; Gwynn, 1998; Kindall & Winkin, 2000; Polk, 1978; Stallings, J. & Bennett, B. [Eds.], 2003). In addition, intercollegiate hitters believe that as the bat travels through the swing’s range of motion with a choke-up grip, the bat feels lighter and more controllable (a potential psychological factor beyond the scope of this study) (Adair, 1990; Bahill & Karnavas, 1989; Delmonico, 1996; DeRenne, 2007; Gwynn, 1998; Kindall & Winkin, 2000) as compared to the normal grip swing with hands held down at the end of the bat.

Limited hitting research studies has been conducted over the past twenty-five years to determine bat control and associated factors (DeRenne, & Blitzbau, 1990; Escamilla, Fleisig, DeRenne, Taylor, Moorman, Imamura, 2009; Fleisig, Zheng, Stodden, & Andrews, 2002; McIntyre, & Pfautsh, 1982; Messier, & Owen, 1985; Messier, & Owen, 1986; Szymanski, D.J., DeRenne. C., & Spaniol, F.J., 2009). Based on limited research on bat control, the primary purposes of this study were to explore the relationship among hitting components (stride time, swing time, bat quickness, bat velocity, and bat-ball accuracy), and bat control during the normal and choke-up grip swings.

Method

Participants

Fourteen adult baseball players (eight college and six professional players one year removed from college) volunteered to participate and were informed of all risks, hazards and benefits for this study. All participants provided written informed consent as approved by the university’s Office of Research Service’s Committee on Human Studies and the federally mandated Institutional Review Board. All participants were required (1) to be injury-free, (2) have a career batting average of least .300, (3) have choke-up grip hitting experiences at the youth, high school and collegiate levels, (4) and possess good hitting mechanics as determined by the players’ respective hitting coaches (DeRenne, 2007; Race, 1961; Welch, Banks, Cook, & Draovitch, 1995). The subjects had an average age, weight, and height of 22.2±2.3 y, 84.8±6.6 kg, and 180.6±3.7 cm, respectively. The college and professional participants were statistically equivalent to each other with respect to age, body mass, body height, bat characteristics, and temporal and kinematic parameters (Escamilla et al., 2009).

Apparatus

Radar gun

Pitched baseballs were assessed during the batting practice session by an electromagnetic radiation radar (CMI Model JF 100) with a transmission frequency of 10.525 GHz + 25 MHz (DeRenne, Ho, Blitzblau, 1990). Pitched ball velocities were recorded as the ball left the pitching machine. This radar gun has been reported to be a valid and reliable instrument to determine ball exit velocities and is accurate within ± 0.22 m/s (DeRenne et al., 1990).).

High-speed cameras

Two synchronized gen-locked 120 Hz video cameras (Peak Performance Technologies, Inc., Englewood, CO) were optimally positioned to view the hitter. To minimize the effects of digitizing error, the cameras were positioned so that the hitter was as large as possible within the viewing area of the cameras.

Computerized motion analysis system

A 3-D video system (Peak Performance Technologies, Inc., Englewood, CO) was used to manually digitize data for all subjects. A spatial model was created, comprised of the top of the head, centers of the left and right mid-toes (at approximately the head of the third metatarsal), joint centers of the ankles, knees, hips, shoulders, and elbows, mid-point of hands (at approximately the head of the third metacarpal), and proximal and distal end of bat. All points were seen in each camera view. Each of these points was digitized in every video field.

Total body swing kinematics was calculated representing 59 measurements. The three most important swing kinematics that represented the total swing effects to be analyzed for swing grip differences were as follows: stride time, swing time (bat quickness), and estimated linear bat velocity at bat-ball contact.

The swing definition

The swing was defined by four events and three phases. The first event was “lead foot off ground”, which represented the beginning of the stride phase and was defined as the first frame in which the lead foot was no longer in contact with the ground. The next event was “lead foot contact with ground”, which represented the end of the stride phase and was defined as the first frame when the lead foot made contact with the ground. “Lead foot off ground” to “lead foot contact with ground” represented the time duration of the stride phase of the swing. The third event was “hands started to move forward”, which was defined as the first frame that both hands started to move forward towards the pitcher in the positive X direction. “Lead foot contact with ground” to “hands started to move forward” represented the time duration of the transition phase of the swing (transition between the stride phase and acceleration phase). The last event was “bat-ball contact”, which was defined as the first frame immediately before bat-ball contact. “Hands started to move forward to bat-ball contact” represented the time duration of the acceleration phase of the swing. Therefore, the “swing” was defined as from “lead foot off ground” to “bat-ball contact”, and consisted of stride, transition, and acceleration phases.

Procedures

Familiarization session

During the initial familiarization session, all players were given a preliminary choke-up questionnaire to provide background evidence of choking up on the bat during their respective youth, high school and collegiate careers. In order to participate in the choke-up hitting study, all players must have had answered the first three questions with a YES, indicating a substantial history of choking-up during their baseball careers. On question four, the players were asked to list the two top reasons why they decided to choke-up on the bat in competitive games. Bat control was listed by all 14 players (100%) as the number one reason for choking up in the games. The second highest reason was a tie: 50% indicated bat-ball contact accuracy was their second choice; and 50% indicated increased bat speed and bat quickness.

In addition, all players received batting practice instructions. At no time did the investigators reveal the purpose of the study to the players. They were told only that the study was a biomechanical hitting study to determine the mechanical commonalities of the 14 adult swing mechanics.

Batting practice sessions

Bats were self-selected, and average bat weight was 8.5±0.3 N (30.6±1.1 oz) and average bat length was 84.8±1.3 cm (33.4±0.5 inch). The same bat was used for both grip swings. The players were randomly assigned into five hitting groups (4-groups of n =3; 1-group of n=2). Each group was randomized as to the order of group hitting and which bat grip to use. During warm-up, each player had two to-three rounds of hitting with each grip swing to become familiar with the speed and locations of the pitched balls, and the timing of the pitches from the pitching machine. Once the warm-up session was completed, the batting practice sessions commenced.

The first batting session was to determine the kinematic and temporal effects of the normal grip and choke -up grip swings. Each hitter rotated within his respective group until he completed 10 hard, full effort swings with a normal grip (hands as far down as possible on the bat); and 10 hard, full effort swings with a choke-up grip (hands 6.35 cm above the normal grip) as a pitching machine “pitched” baseballs to them. In each group, half the group were randomly assigned to hit with a normal grip first and the other half a choke-up grip first, to eliminate a potential timing confounder. The first three normal grip swings and three choke-up swings that met the following pitch and swing criteria were digitized for each hitter.

Pitches and swings were standardized according to the following criteria: 1) all pitches were between 32.6-33.5 m/s (73-75 mi/h); 2) the pitch had to be a strike on the inner half of the plate from waist to chest high on the hitter; and 3) all swings digitized and used as trials had to be a line drive hit to left-center outfield that carried in flight beyond a 68.6 m (225 feet) marker positioned in left-center field. From pilot data, hitting kinematic and temporal parameters from multiple swings by a hitter that met the above pitch and swing criteria were found to be remarkably similar between swings, typically varying less than 5-10% for each kinematic or temporal parameter.

The second batting practice session was conducted 48-hours after the first batting practice session in order to control fatigue. The purpose of this second batting practice session was to determine bat-ball contact accuracy performances of each player as the hitters executed normal and choke-up grip swings during a live practice simulated game. Along with the first batting practice session, this accuracy batting practice session represented a bat control measure. Specifically, each hitter was instructed to swing at ten acceptable strikes over the entire plate, (inside, down the middle and outside part of the plate; from knee to chest high) with each swing grip as to execute successful hits. Two rounds of five swings were performed by each hitter to control fatigue. A successful hit was defined as “putting the ball in play” with at least a normal or routine (1) groundball, (2) fly ball or (3) line drive. Unacceptable hits were as follows: (1) A swing and miss, (2) foul ball, (3) a weak pop-up, and (4) a weak groundball. As each hitter attempted to “put the ball in play”, they were instructed to swing accordingly with a “full” count of two strikes and three balls as live base runners were moving. In addition, if the pitch was a ball, they were instructed to take the pitch and swing only at acceptable strikes. Only swinging strikes counted against acceptable pitch strikes until each player accumulated ten acceptable swings from each grip. Again, the accuracy goal for each swing was to successfully put the ball in play. The four-man investigative team determined the following: (1) the first investigator determined if the pitch was acceptable within the 73-75 mph range and if the pitch was a strike or ball; and (2) the remaining three investigators determined the degree of accuracy and degree of hardness (e.g., no hit, weak hit, routine hit, hard hit) of each swing. The mean accuracy average of the three investigators was determined for each player’s swing. The mean average was then converted into percentages, which were described as either a YES, successful; or a NO, unsuccessful swing/hit. Therefore, the resultant percentage describes the percentage out of ten swings that each player put the ball in play (see Table 1).

Table 1. Paired Sample T Test for Hitting Parameters in the Normal and Choke-up conditions (n = 14).

	Normal Grip	Choke-up Grip	p value
*Stride Phase
(Time from Lead Foot Off Ground to Lead Foot Contact with Ground) (s) (% of Swing)	0.375±0.075 64.0±10.5	0.336±0.072 62.8±10.2	p = .01
*Swing
(Time from Lead Foot Off Ground to Bat-Ball contact) (m/s)	0.586±0.078*	0.535±0.083*	p = .01
Bat (distal end) Linear Velocity at Bat-Ball Contact (m/s)	31±4	28±5	p =.01
Contact Accuracy Acceptable Hits Out Of Ten Pitched Strikes (%)	.63±.15	.64±.18	p = .90

Statistical Analysis

All data analyses were performed using SPSS, version 14.0 (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, 2005). Kinematic and temporal data were averaged for the three normal swings and for the three choke-up swings and used in statistical analyses (Escamilla et al., 2009). Dependent (paired) t-tests were employed to test for differences in kinematic and temporal parameters and bat-ball accuracy between the normal grip and choke-up grip swings. In order to minimize the probability of making a type I error without increases the probability of making a type II error, the level of significance used was set at p < 0.01, resulting in an experiment-wise error of 0.31.

Results

Temporal stride and swing parameters are shown in Table 1. The results of the dependent (paired) sample T-tests revealed no significant differences in bat-ball contact accuracy t(- .12) between the normal and choke-up conditions. Significant differences were found between stride time t(2.88) with the mean choke-up grip swing .039 seconds (10%) faster than the normal grip swing. Similar significant differences where found between swing time t(2.56) with the mean choke-up grip swing .051 (9%) seconds faster to the bat-ball contact. In addition, similar significant differences where found between bat velocity t(.289) with mean normal grip swing 3.0 m/s (10%) faster than the choke-up grip swing.

Discussion

This study investigated the relationship among hitting components and bat control during the normal and choke-up grip swings. We found the choke-up grip facilitates faster swing and stride times without compromising bat velocity and bat control.

Swing time (bat quickness) and stride time

Two important findings in the present study were the significant reduced swing time (increased bat quickness) and stride phase time when using a choke-up grip swing. These results support the belief of many intercollegiate hitting coaches and players (Delmonico, 1996; DeRenne, 2007; Gwynn, 1998; Kindall & Winkin, 2000; Polk, 1978; Stallings, J. & Bennett, B. [Eds.], 2003) that using a choke-up grip results in a “quicker” bat during the swing (DeRenne & Blitzbau, 1990). When choking up, the hitters adjusted their swing mechanics for more bat control resulting in less stride time and increased bat quickness while not sacrificing a significant loss in bat velocity. In addition, the choke-up hitter may have better control the bat due to the smaller moment of inertia of the bat about the hands that choking up on the bat creates (Adair, 1990; Bahill & Karnavas, 1989; Fleisig et al., 2002).

Based on the results, the choke-up grip bat controlled swing may give hitters 0.039 seconds or 10% more time to decide whether or not to swing at a pitch. This may help the hitters to see the ball longer, due to the trunk being in a more open position and a smaller moment of inertia of the bat allow the choke-up hitter to have more time to “wait on the pitch”. Furthermore, the decrease in stride phase time using a choke-up grip may result in less total body movement for greater balance and possibly improved visual clarity (DeRenne, 2007), while maintaining the same stride length compared to the normal grip.

Linear bat velocity

Choking up on the bat for more bat control allowed the hitters to reduce the moment of inertia of the bat about the hands (Adair, 1990; Bahill & Karnavas, 1989). That is, more of the bat mass was closer to the hands, so the summation of mass times distance squared (Σ (m·r2)) was reduced. Similarly, in golf, to increase club control and maximize the accuracy of pitching and chipping shots, professional golfers choke-down the grip-handle toward the shaft to produce a lower grip on the club and a slower/shorter backswing (Hume, Keogh, & Reid, 2005). In addition in assessing putting kinematics of low-handicap golfers versus high-handicap players, Paradisis and Rees (2002) reported that low-handicap players positioned their leading hand ~8cm further down the shaft of the club than the high-handicap players. In the present study, while the smaller moment of inertia in the choke-up group may lead to faster movements and to a diminished force production in accordance with the force-velocity relationship for muscle. This may be an important factor in helping to explain why linear bat velocity at bat-ball contact was less using a more controlled choke-up grip swing compared to a normal grip swing. It also may be that while choking up, the bat is “shorter”, thus, the distal endpoint of the bat is closer to the axis of rotation and traveling slower compared to the a normal grip swing. Therefore, the slower bat linear velocity at bat-ball contact when using the choke-up grip compared to the normal grip could be related to either or both of these factors.

Tennis racquet control

Similar in tennis, (Chow, Carlton, Lim, Chae, Shim, Kuenster, and Kokubun, 2003) compared the pre-and post-ball and racquet kinematics of professional adult men and women (n=8) tennis players’ first and second serves. The results indicated a 24.1% decrease in post-impact ball speed from the first to the second serve. This finding was expected since the second serve is considered to be more accurate than the first serve because players are successful on a higher percentage of the second serves (Chow et al., 2003). More importantly, the second finding revealed that there were no significant differences between the pre-impact racquet head speeds of the first and the second serves. On the typical second serve, most elite players will use a sidespin “slice” serve increasing racquet control as a trade-off between ball speed and accuracy (Chow et al., 2003). In others words, it might have been expected that elite tennis players would have slowed down their racquet speed on the second slice serve to ensure greater accuracy. This did not happen. Therefore, there was a speed-accuracy trade-off between ball speed and accuracy, but not racquet movement speed and accuracy. Elite tennis players do not slow down their racquet swing when transferring from the first serve to the second serve. The authors also found no differences between racquet speed and accuracy as typically observed in motor tasks (Fitts, 1954).

In the current study, the choked-up bat velocities declined by a significant 10%; yet, the players’ swing times decreased by a significant 9%, which produced a quicker bat. Hence, as elite baseball hitters and tennis pros seek greater bat control when the hitters choke up and tennis pros serve the second serve, interestingly, both hitters and tennis pros swing just as hard and fast as with their normal swing respectively, with no trade-off between bat and racquet speeds and accuracy.

Furthermore, the current study is similar to the results of the pilot baseball swing study comparing the kinematic and temporal parameters of normal and choke-up grips swings reported by DeRenne & Blitzbau (1990). The result reported by DeRenne & Blitzbau (1990) of greater linear bat velocity at bat-ball contact using the normal grip may appear surprising to many collegiate head coaches and hitting coaches. Most collegiate coaches believe that a “quicker” and controlled swing using the choke-up grip equates to greater bat speed (Delmonico, 1996; DeRenne, 2007; Gwynn, 1998; Kindall & Winkin, 2000; Polk, 1978; Stallings, J. & Bennett, B. [Eds.], 2003). Although linear bat velocity was significantly less in the choke-up grip swing compared to the normal grip swing, and although the mass of the bat is the same between normal and choke-up grips, there are data that imply that choking up on a bat may affect the “effective mass” of the bat, resulting in less momentum (mass x velocity) with the choke-up grip (Fleisig et al., 2002). Therefore, using a choke-up grip for more bat control may result in decreased ball flight distance after bat-ball impact, which should be the focus of subsequent hitting studies.

Major league hall of fame hitters, hitting coaches, and managers (Alston & Weiskopf, 1972; Cobb, 1961; Lau, et al., 1998; Williams, 1970), and intercollegiate head coaches and hitting coaches believed that more bat control would produce greater bat-ball accuracy ((Delmonico, 1996; DeRenne, 2007; Gwynn, 1998; Kindall & Winkin, 2000; Polk, 1978; Stallings, J. & Bennett, B. [Eds.], 2003). ). This belief was supported in theory by Bahill’s and Karnavas’s (1989) baseball bat weights study. These investigators suggest that as hitters choke-up on the bat they will make the bat effectively shorter, move the center of mass closer to the hands thereby reducing the moment of inertia, in essence making the bat act like a lighter bat with greater accuracy. In contrast, the results of this study indicated that choking up on the bat did not increase bat-ball contact accuracy. Yet in essence, the hitters were as accurate choking up as with their normal grip swing.

In summary and most importantly, the results of this study suggest that choking up for greater bat control may increase the hitter’s confidence and execution knowing that is able to wait longer for the incoming pitch because he is quicker to the ball, and he is as accurate as his normal grip swing.

Conclusions

In conclusion, although time was not significantly different in the acceleration phase between normal and choke-up grips, the total time of the swing (from stride initiation to bat-ball contact) was significantly less with the choke-up grip, which supports the belief of many coaches and players that using a bat controlled choke-up grip results in a “quicker” overall swing. This “quicker bat” implies that with the bat controlled choke-up grip, a hitter can wait longer in order to determine how to handle the incoming pitch. In addition, because linear bat velocity was significantly less in the choke-up grip compared to the normal grip, there may be less momentum with the choke-up grip because of the differences in mass distribution of the bat with choking up, which may result in decreased ball flight distance after impact. A decreased flight distance (power) may not be so negative, since the hitter’s main goal is more solid contact accuracies.

References

Adair, R.K. (1990). The physics of baseball. New York, NY.: Harper & Row Publishers.

Alston, W. & Weiskopf, D. (1972). The complete baseball handbook. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

Bahill, A.T. & Karnavas, W.J. (1989). Determining ideal baseball bat weights using muscle force-velocity relationships. Biological Cybernetics, 62, 89-97.

Berkow, I., & J. Kaplan (1992). The gospel according to Casey. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Chow, J.W., Carlton, L.G., Lim, Y.T., Chae, W.S., Shim, J.H., Kuenster, A.F., & Kokubun, K. (2003). Comparing the pre-and post-impact ball and racquet kinematics of elite tennis players’ first and second serves: A preliminary study. Journal of Sport Sciences, 21, 529-537.

Cobb, T. (1961). My life in baseball: The true record. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Co.

Delmonico, R. (1996). Offensive baseball drills. Champaign, IL.: Human Kinetics.

DeRenne, C. (2007). The scientific approach to hitting: Research explores the most difficult skill in sport. San Diego, CA, University Readers.

DeRenne, C., & Blitzbau, A. (1990). Why your hitters should choke up. Scholastic Coach, Jan, 106-107.

Durocher, L. (1975). Nice guys finish last. New York, NY.: Simon & Schuster.

Escamilla, Fleisig, R.F., S., DeRenne, C, Taylor, M.K., Moorman, C.T., Imamura, R., et al. (2009). Effects of bat grip on baseball hitting kinematics. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 25, 203-209.

Fitts, P.M. (1954). The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 381-391.

Fleisig, G. S., Zheng, N., Stodden, D. F., & Andrews, J. R. (2002). Relationship between bat mass properties and bat velocity. Sports Engineering, 5, 1-8.

Gwynn, T. (1998). The art of hitting. Vancouver, BC, Canada: GT Publishing.

Hume, P.A., Keogh, J., & Reid, D. (2005). The role of biomechanics in maximizing distance and accuracy of golf shots. Sports Medicine, 35 (5): 429-449.

Kindall, J., & Winkin, J. (2000). The baseball bible. Champaign, IL.: Human Kinetics.

Lau, C., Glosssbrenner, A., & LaRussa, T. (1980). The art of hitting .300. New York, NY: E.P. Dutton.

McIntyre, D. R., & Pfautsh, E. W. (1982). A kinematic analysis of the baseball batting swings involved in opposite-field and same-field hitting. Research Quarterly in Exercise and Sport, 53, 206-213.

Messier, S. P., & Owen, M. G. (1985). The mechanics of batting: Analysis of ground reaction forces and selected lower extremity kinematics. Research Quarterly in Exercise and Sport, 56, 138-143.

Messier, S. P., & Owen, M. G. (1986). Mechanics of batting: Effect of stride technique on ground reaction forces and bat velocities. Research Quarterly in Exercise and Sport, 57, 329-333.

Paradisis, G. & Rees, J. (2002). Kinematic analysis of golf putting for expert and novice golfers: In: Hong, Y., editor. Proceedings of XVIII International Symposium on Biomechanics in Sports; 2002 Jul 23-26. Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Department of Sports Science and Physical Education, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2002: 325-8.

Polk, R. (1978). Baseball playbook. West Point, Miss.: Sullivan’s Printing.

Race, D.E. (1961). A cinematographic and mechanical analysis of the external movements involved in hitting a baseball effectively. The Research Quarterly, 32, 394-404.

Stallings, J. & Bennett, B. [Eds.] (2003). Baseball strategies: Your guide to the game within the game. Champaign, IL.: Human Kinetics.

Szymanski, D.J., DeRenne. C., & Spaniol, F.J. (2009). 1Contributing factors for increased bat swing velocity: A Brief Review. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (in press).

Welch, C. M., Banks, S. A., Cook, F. F., & Draovitch, P. (1995). Hitting a baseball: a biomechanical description. Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy, 22, 193-201.

Williams, T. (1970). The Science of Hitting. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

U.S. Sports Academy2013-11-25T17:59:33-06:00April 8th, 2010|Sports Exercise Science, Sports Management|Comments Off

Investigation of Recruiting Criteria of Leading NCAA Division I Softball Coaches

Amber N. Kavekar, M.S., Trinity Valley Community College; Sally J. Ford, Ph. D, Texas Woman’s University

Abstract

Purpose of this investigation was to determine the recruitment criteria of the 50 winningest active coaches in NCAA I collegiate softball. Twenty-seven of the NCAA Division I head coaches completed a survey designed to assess their recruiting evaluation standards and measures. The survey 15 items based on the evaluation of a recruit including statistics, use of recruiting tools, measuring intangibles and tangibles, the preference of a multi-sport high school athlete or a multi-position player, when to begin recruiting, most desired positions recruited, and the important elements of a successful recruiting athletic program. Based on the analyses of the survey date, most of the coaches use similar criteria. Results indicated similar explanations and findings in current talent identification, recruiting techniques, and applications.

(more…)

U.S. Sports Academy2016-10-20T14:34:29-05:00April 8th, 2010|Sports Management, Women and Sports|Comments Off

An Analysis of Leadership Qualities That Influence Male and Female Athletes in Middle School Interscholastic Team Sports

Dr. Raymond Tucker, United States Sports Academy doctoral graduate

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine what behavior styles of leadership male and female athletes in middle school interscholastic team sports prefer their coaches use. The study compares those behavior styles of leadership used by coaches on male and female athletes at three different middle schools. The study compares males and females to determine if the preferred behavior styles of leadership are similar.

Results of this study detected a statistically significant difference in the leadership behavior styles by male and female coaches among the middle schools between the following dimensions: (1) democratic behavior and training and instruction, (2) autocratic behavior and training and instruction, (3) social support and training and instruction, (4) positive feedback and democratic behavior, (5) positive feedback and autocratic behavior, (6) positive feedback and social support. The study did detect a statistically significant difference in the behavior styles of leadership used at the different middle schools in the dimensions of autocratic behavior, training and instruction, and positive feedback. This study did not reveal a statistically significant difference between the middle schools in the dimensions of democratic behavior and social support. Finally, the study detected the only statistically significant difference between male and female coaches in middle school interscholastic team sports in the five dimensions of leadership behavior was in training and instruction.

Results of this study indicate that male and female coaches use different leadership behavior styles to deal with male and female athletes in middle school interscholastic team sports. The study reveals that female coaches place more emphasis on the training and instruction behavior style of leadership than male coaches.

This study does not examine which behavior style of leadership is superior for the overall success of an interscholastic middle school athletic program. What follows is the basis for this study, procedures used to conduct the research, an analysis of the data, conclusions, and finally, recommendations for further research on this topic.

Research Questions

This research study entitled An Analysis of Leadership Qualities That Influence Male and Female Athletes in Middle School Interscholastic Team Sports was conducted to answer the following research questions:

Was there a difference in the median scores of the five Leadership Scale of Sports dimensions among eighth grade females in middle school interscholastic team sports?
Was there a difference in the median scores of the five Leadership Scale of Sports dimensions among eighth grade males in middle school interscholastic team sports?
Was there a difference between eighth grade males and eighth grade females who participate in middle school interscholastic team sports in the median scores of the five Leadership Scale of Sports dimensions?
Was there a difference among the three middle schools in the median scores of the five Leadership Scale of Sports dimensions?

Subjects

Subjects for this study were male and female athletes who participated in interscholastic
team sports at their middle schools during their seventh and eighth grade years. The schools selected for this study were three different middle schools from Central Texas which include Bastrop, Cedar Creek, and Elgin middle schools.

Methods

Data for this study was collected using the Leadership Scale of Sports (LSS) questionnaire with the permission of Dr. Packianthan Chelladurai Ph.D at Ohio State University. Athletic coordinators at each school were given verbal directions in person prior to the questionnaires being mailed. The data was analyzed quantitatively using the 15.0 version of Statistical Package for Social Sciences. Several statistical tests were used to analyze the data. The Freidman test is a test used for two-way repeated measures analysis of variance by ranks. This test was used to determine the statistically significant difference based on gender among the three middle schools in at least one of the five dimensions of leadership behavior. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test is a non-parametric statistical hypothesis test used for two related samples or repeated measures on a single sample. In order to determine the location of the difference, a series of Wilcoxon signed-ranks tests using the Bonferroni adjustment to the p-value were administered. Because there are ten comparisons to be measured, 0.05 was divided 10, rendering a new p-value of 0.005 The Kruskal-Wallis test is the non-analog test, an ANOVA; this test was used to compare three or more medians among schools based on gender. In order to determine if there were differences between males and females concerning the median scores on the (LSS), the Mann-Whitney U statistical test was used.

Results

The first research question in this study asked whether there was a difference in the
median scores of the five leadership scale of sports dimensions among eighth grade females in middle school interscholastic team sports. This question can be answered by the results of the Friedman test in Table 1.13, which clearly shows a statistically significant difference among females athletes in at least one of the five leadership scale of sports dimensions of leadership behavior from Bastrop, Cedar Creek, and Elgin middle schools. Based on this data, a series of pair wise comparisons was made to determine where the differences lie by using Wilcoxon signed Rank Test and a Bonferroni adjustment to the p-value. Because ten comparisons were made, 0.05 was divided by by10, to get a new p-value of.005.
The results of the Wilcoxon signed-rank Test in Table 4.13 show a statistically
significant difference at the 0.005 alpha level among the females athletes between
between the following dimensions: (1) democratic behavior and training and instruction, (2) between autocratic behavior and training and instruction, (3) between social support and training and instruction, (4) between positive feedback and democratic behavior, (5) between positive feedback and autocratic behavior, and (6) between positive feedback and social support.
The data in Table 3.13 reveals the first statistically significant difference between the dimensions of democratic behavior and training and instruction among female coaches at the respective middle schools. Female coaches at Bastrop Middle School had a mean score of 3.13 for democratic behavior, and a mean score of 2.1 for training and instruction. Female coaches at Cedar Creek Middle School had a mean score of 2.60 for democratic behavior and a mean score of 2.3 for training and instruction. Female coaches at Elgin Middle School had a mean score of 3.07 for democratic behavior and a mean score of 2.3 for training and instruction. This data clearly shows that female coaches at Bastrop Middle School and Elgin Middle School have a higher regard for the democratic behavior style of leadership compared to the training and instruction style of leadership. Female coaches at Bastrop Middle School ranked the highest in utilizing the democratic behavior style of leadership over training and instruction.

The second statistically significant difference occurred between the dimensions of autocratic behavior and training and instruction. The data in Table 3.13 reveals that female coaches at Bastrop Middle School show a mean score of 2.7 for autocratic behavior and a mean score of 2.1 for training and instruction. Female coaches at Cedar Creek Middle School had a mean score of 2.65 for autocratic behavior and a mean score of 2.3 for training and instruction. Female coaches at Elgin Middle School show a mean score of 3.15 for autocratic behavior and a mean score 2.3 for training and instruction. This data reveals that female coaches at all three middle schools placed a greater emphasis on the autocratic behavior style of leadership compared to training and instruction. Female coaches at Elgin Middle School ranked highest in utilizing the autocratic behavior style of leadership over training and instruction.

The third statistically significant difference occurred between the dimensions of
social support and training and instruction. Table 3.13 reveals that female coaches at Bastrop Middle School had a mean score of 2.88 for social support and a mean score of 2.1 for training and instruction. Female coaches at Cedar Creek Middle School had a mean score of 2.67 for social support and a mean score of 2.3 for training and instruction. Female coaches at Elgin Middle School had a mean score 3.29 for social support and a mean score of 2.3 for training and instruction. This data reveals that female coaches at all three schools have a higher regard for the social support behavior style of leadership compared to training and instruction. Female coaches at Elgin Middle School ranked the highest in utilizing the social support behavior style of leadership compared to training and instruction.

The fourth statistically significant difference occurred between the dimensions of positive feedback and democratic behavior. Table 3.13 reveals that female coaches at Bastrop Middle School have a mean score of 2.06 for positive feedback and a mean score of 3.13 for the democratic behavior style of leadership. Female coaches at Cedar Creek Middle School had a mean score of 2.24 for positive feedback and a mean score of 2.60 for the democratic behavior style of leadership. Female coaches at Elgin Middle School had a mean score of 2.29 for positive feedback and mean score of 3.07 for democratic behavior. The result of this data indicate that female coaches at Bastrop and Elgin middle schools have a higher regard for the democratic behavior style of leadership than positive feedback. Female coaches at Bastrop Middle School showed the highest regard for the democratic behavior style of leadership over positive feedback.

The fifth statistically significant difference occurred between the dimensions of
positive feedback and autocratic behavior. Table 3.13 reveals that female coaches at Bastrop Middle School had a mean score of 2.06 for positive feedback and a mean score of 2.77 for the autocratic behavior style of leadership. Female coaches at Cedar Creek Middle School had a mean score of 2.24 for positive feedback and a mean score of 2.65 for the autocratic behavior style of leadership. Female coaches at Elgin Middle School had a mean score of 2.29 for positive feedback and a mean score of 3.15 for the autocratic behavior style of leadership. This data reveals that female coaches place more emphasis on the autocratic behavior style of leadership compared to positive feedback. Female coaches at Elgin Middle School had the highest regard for using positive feedback over the autocratic behavior style of leadership.

The sixth statistically significant difference occurred between the dimensions of positive feedback and social support. Table 3.13 reveals that female coaches at Bastrop Middle School had a mean score of 2.06 for positive feedback and a mean score of 2.8 for the social support behavior style of leadership. Female coaches at Cedar Creek Middle School had a mean score of 2.24 for positive feedback and a mean score of 2.67 for the social support behavior styles of leadership. Female coaches at Elgin Middle School had a mean score of 2.29 for positive feedback and a mean score of 3.29 for the social support behavior style of leadership. This data reveals that female coaches at the three middle schools have a higher regard for the social support behavior style of leadership compared to positive feedback. Female coaches at Elgin Middle School had the highest score in the social support behavior style of leadership compared to positive feedback.

The second research question of this study asked whether there was a difference in the median scores of the five LSS dimensions among eighth grade males in middle school interscholastic team sports. The results of the Freidman test in Table 5.13 show that among male athletes in the study, there was a statistically significant difference in at least one of the five leadership scale of sports dimensions of leadership behavior. In order to determine the location of the difference, a series of Wilcoxon signed-rank test using the Bonferroni adjustment to the p-value were conducted. Once again, since there were ten comparisons to be measured, 0.05 was divided by 10, rendering a new p-value of 0.005.

The data from the Wilcoxon signed-rank test in Table 8.13 detected a statistically significant difference in leadership styles among male coaches at Bastrop, Cedar Creek, and Elgin middle schools between the following dimensions: (1) between democratic behavior and training and instruction, (2) between the autocratic behavior and training and instruction, (3) between social support and training and instruction, (4) between positive feedback and democratic behavior, (5) between positive feedback and autocratic behavior, and (6) between positive feedback and social support.

The first statistically significant difference between male coaches at the middle schools occurred between the dimensions of democratic behavior and training and instruction. The data in Table 7.13 shows that male coaches at Cedar Creek Middle School had a high mean score of 3.43 for the democratic behavior style of leadership and a mean score of 2.2 for training and instruction. Male coaches at Bastrop Middle School had a mean score of 2.72 for the democratic behavior style of leadership and a mean score of 2.0 for training and instruction. Male coaches at Elgin Middle School had a mean score of 2.95 for democratic behavior and a mean score of 1.6 for training and instruction. The data reveals that the male coaches at three middle schools have a higher regard for the democratic behavior style of leadership than training and instruction. Male coaches at Cedar Creek Middle School showed the highest regard for the democratic behavior style of leadership compared to training and instruction.

The second statistically significant difference occurred between the dimensions of
autocratic behavior and training and instruction. The data in Table 7.13 reveals that male
coaches at Cedar Creek Middle School had a mean score of 3.01 for the dimension of autocratic behavior and a mean score of 2.2 for training and instruction. Male coaches at Elgin Middle School had a mean score of 3.07 for autocratic behavior and a mean score of 1.6 for training and instruction. Male coaches at Bastrop Middle School had a mean score of 2.69 for autocratic behavior and a mean score of 2.0 for training and instruction. The data reveals that male coaches at all three middle schools have a higher regard for the autocratic behavior style of leadership compared to training and instruction. Male coaches at Elgin Middle School ranked highest in utilizing the autocratic behavior style of leadership over training and instruction.

The third statistically significant difference occurred between the dimensions of social support and training and instruction. The data in Table 7.13 reveals that male coaches at Cedar Creek Middle School had the highest regard for the social support leadership style, with a mean score of 3.2, whereas they had a mean score of 2.2 for training and instruction. Male coaches at both Bastrop and Elgin middle schools scored high in the dimension of social support, with means scores of 2.66 and 2.65, respectively. Male coaches at Bastrop Middle School had a mean score of 2.2 for training and instruction and male coaches at Elgin Middle School had a mean score of 1.6. The data reveals that male coaches at the middle schools have a higher regard for the social support behavior style of leadership compared to training and instruction. The data also shows that male coaches at Cedar Creek Middle School have a high regard for the use of the social support behavior style of leadership compared to training and instruction.

The fourth statistically significant difference occurred between the dimensions of positive feedback and democratic behavior. The data in Table 7.13 shows that male coaches at Cedar Creek Middle School had a mean score of 2.26 for positive feedback and a mean score of 3.43 for the democratic behavior style of leadership. Male coaches at Bastrop Middle School had a mean score of 2.0 for positive feedback and a mean score of 2.72 for the democratic behavior style of leadership. Male coaches at Elgin Middle School had a mean score of 1.70 for positive feedback and a mean score of 2.95 for the democratic behavior style of leadership. Male coaches at all three middle schools showed a higher regard for the democratic behavior style of leadership compared to positive feedback.

The fifth statistically significant difference occurred between the dimensions of positive feedback and autocratic behavior. Table 7.13 shows that male coaches at Cedar Creek Middle School had a mean score of 2.26 for positive feedback and a mean score of 3.01 for autocratic behavior style of leadership. Male coaches at Bastrop Middle School had a mean score of 2.01 for positive feedback and a mean score of 2.69 for the autocratic behavior style of leadership. Male coaches at Elgin Middle School had a mean score of 1.70 for positive feedback and a mean score of 3.15 for the autocratic behavior style of leadership. The data reveals that male coaches at the three middle schools have a higher regard for the autocratic behavior style of leadership compared to positive feedback. Male coaches at Elgin Middle School ranked the highest in utilizing the autocratic behavior style of leadership over the positive feedback behavior style of leadership.

The sixth statistically significant difference occurred between the dimensions of positive feedback and social support. The data in Table 7.13 reveals that male coaches at Cedar Creek Middle School had a mean score of 2.26 for positive feedback and a mean score of 3.21 for the social support behavior style of leadership. Male coaches at Bastrop Middle School had a mean score of 2.01 for positive feedback and mean score of 2.66 for social support. Male coaches at Elgin Middle School had a mean score of 1.7 for positive feedback and a mean score of 2.65 for the social support behavior style of leadership. The data indicates that male coaches at the three middle schools place a higher regard on using the social support behavior style of leadership over positive feedback.

The third research question in this study asked whether there was a statistically significant difference between eighth grade males and females in middle school interscholastic sports in the median score of the five leadership scale of sports dimensions. This question was answered using the Mann-Whitney U test to compare the median scores between male and female student athletes and the unpaired t-test. The data in Table 9.13 reveals the only statistically significant difference in means between male and female students was for the training and instruction behavior style of leadership. The difference was not statistically significant for any of the other four dimensions of leadership behavior styles preferred by males and females at any of the three middle schools. The data in Table 10.13 shows a mean score of 1.99 for males, and a mean score of 2.22 for females at Bastrop, Cedar Creek, and Elgin middle schools for the dimension of training and instruction. The data also shows female coaches have a higher regard for the training and instruction behavior style of leadership than male coaches.

The fourth research question asked whether there was a difference among the three
middle schools in the median scores of the five leadership scale of sports dimensions. The data in Table 11.13 reveals the first statistically significant difference occurred within the dimension of autocratic behavior between Bastrop Middle School and Elgin Middle School. The data in Table 12.13 displays the second statistically significant difference within the dimension of training and instruction between Cedar Creek Middle School and Elgin Middle School. The data in table 13.13 detects the third statistically significant difference within the dimension of positive feedback between Cedar Creek Middle School and Elgin Middle School. This difference was determined by the Bonferroni adjustment, which gave a new p-value of 0.017. The data did not reveal a statistical difference for the dimensions of social support and the democratic behavior styles of leadership among the three middle schools.

Discussion and Implications

In answering the first research question, the researcher will discuss the statistically significant differences among female coaches between the following dimensions: (1) democratic behavior and training and instruction, (2) autocratic behavior and training and instruction, (3) social support and training and instruction. Female coaches at all three middle schools did not place much emphasis on the training and instruction behavior style of leadership. Instead more emphasis was placed on the democratic and autocratic behavior styles of leadership. These behavior styles of leadership do not enhance athletic performance or improve athletic ability. The data in Table 2.13 reveals a high mean score of 2.88 for the dimension of democratic behavior among female coaches at the middle schools in this study. The data also shows a high mean score of 2.79 for the dimension of the autocratic behavior style of leadership among the female coaches at the three middle schools in this study. The social support behavior style of leadership had a mean score of 2.87. The data indicates female coaches at the three middle schools use the social support behavior style of leadership in their daily interaction with athletes. The data reveals the training and instruction behavior style of leadership has the lowest mean scores among the female coaches at the three middle schools with a mean of 2.23.

In the dimensions of (4) positive feedback and democratic behavior, (5) positive feedback and autocratic behavior, and (6) positive behavior and social support, female coaches at the three middle schools did not place much emphasis on the positive feedback behavior style of leadership. Instead, they placed more emphasis on the democratic and autocratic behavior styles of leadership. This means the coaches place more emphasis on controlling an athlete, giving them the opportunity to express their opinions, and helping an athlete through problems, than encouraging and reinforcing good behavior in athletes.

In order to discuss the second research question, the researcher will discuss the statistically significant differences among male coaches: (1) democratic behavior and training and instruction, (2) autocratic behavior and training and instruction, (3) social support and training and instruction. According to the data in Table 6.13 male coaches at the three middle schools did not place much emphasis in the training and instruction behavior style of leadership compared to the democratic, autocratic and social support behavior styles of leadership. Male coaches had a mean score of 2.98 for democratic; 2.87 for autocratic and a 1.98 for training and instruction. In the dimensions of (4) positive feedback and democratic behavior, (5) positive feedback and autocratic behavior, (6) positive feedback and social support, male coaches did not place much emphasis in the positive feedback behavior style of leadership compared to democratic behavior, autocratic behavior and social support. As with female coaches, male coaches placed more emphasis on the democratic and autocratic behavior styles of leadership. According to the date more emphasis was placed on controlling an athlete, giving them the opportunity to express their opinions, and helping an athlete through problems, than encouraging and reinforcing good behavior in athletes.

In looking at the third research question, the data in Table 10.13 reveals a statistically significant difference for the dimension of training and instruction between male and female coaches at the three middle schools for this study. Male coaches had a mean score of 1.99, and female coaches had a mean score of 2.22. According to the data, female coaches scored higher than male coaches in utilizing the training and instruction behavior style of leadership in their daily interaction with athletes. Furthermore, female coaches at Cedar Creek and Elgin Middle Schools had a mean score of 2.3. The data shows for training and instruction, male coaches at Cedar Creek Middle School had a mean score of 2.2. This data also reveals that between male and female coaches at Bastrop Middle School, Cedar Creek Middle School, and Elgin Middle School, female and male coaches at Cedar Creek Middle School and female coaches at Elgin Middle School have a high regard for the dimensions of training and instruction behavior style of leadership.

In discussing the fourth research question, the data reveals a statistically significant difference among male and female coaches at the three respective middle schools for this study. The results of the Kruskal-Wallis test show that for autocratic behavior, there was a statistically significant difference between Bastrop and Elgin middle schools. The data reveals that both male and female coaches at Elgin Middle School have a higher regard for the autocratic behavior style of leadership in their daily interaction with their athletes.

The second statistically significant difference among male and female coaches at the middle schools was for the dimension of training and instruction between Cedar Creek and Elgin middle schools. This data reveals the training and instruction behavior style of leadership is the style preferred by male and female coaches at Cedar Creek Middle School. The third statistically significant difference was for the dimension of positive feedback among male and female coaches at Cedar Creek, and Elgin Middle Schools. The data indicates that male and female coaches at Cedar Creek Middle School have a high regard for the positive feedback behavior style of leadership when interacting with their athletes.

Recommendations

The author of this study makes the following recommendations for further research. First, further research is needed on the leadership behavior styles used by coaches in athletics today and the effect these behavior styles have on athletes. Future research should focus on how the various leadership styles contribute to a successful and winning athletic team. The second recommendation is for future researchers to focus the study on male and female athletes who participate in middle school interscholastic athletics and then conduct another study high school interscholastic athletics in the same school district during their senior year to determine if there was a change in their preferred behavior style of leadership. In addition, if there is a change, research should examine the factors behind the change from middle school to high school intercollegiate athletic programs. The third recommendation is to have other researchers conduct the same study at middle school intercollegiate athletic programs in other school districts, and then compare the school districts results to determine if there is difference between school districts. The last recommendation concerns the methodology used in this study. Future studies should allow for participation from all subjects, regardless of whether or not they participated in athletics during their seventh grade year or more then one sport during their eight grade year.

Finally, it is important to note that a factor that contributed to the researcher’s success in this study was having a strong relationship with the head coaches at the middle schools used in the study. This made it very easy to collect the data. The coaches had an interest in this study and were eager to find out the results.

It is the goal of this study that coaches consider the data in this study and use it to improve on the leadership behavior styles they use in their daily interaction with athletes. Researchers should pursue additional studies on this topic and coaches should look into this and similar studies to improve their interaction with athletes in interscholastic middle school athletic programs.

References

Beam, J., Serwatka, T., & Wilson. J. (2004). Preferred Leadership of NCAA Division I and II Intercollegiate Student-Athletes. Journal of Sports Behavior 27(1) 14-18.

Case, B. (1987). Leadership Behavior in Sport: A Field Test of the Situational Leadership Theory. International Journal Sport Psychology (18), 256-268.

Case. R. (1984). Leadership in Sport. The Situational Leadership Theory. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance.

Charbonneau, D., Barling, J., & Kelloway, E. K. (2001). Transformational leadership and Sports Performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(7), 1521-1534.

Chelladuari, P., & Carron, A. V. (1983). Athletic Maturity and Preferred Leadership. Journal of Sport Psychology (5), 371-380.

Chelladurai, P. (1981). The Coach as Motivator and Chameleon of Leadership Styles. Social Psychology.

Chelladurai, P., & Harold A. R. (1995). Leadership and Satisfaction in Athletics. Journal of Sports & Exercise Psychology (17), 276 – 293.

Chelladurai, P., & Saleh, S. D. (1978). Preferred Leadership In Sports. Canadian Journal of Applied Sports Sciences, 3(2), 85-92.

Chelladurai, P., & Saleh, S. D. (1980). Dimensions of Leader Behavior in Sports; Development of a Leadership Scale. Journal of Sport Psychology (2), 34-45.

Corlett.J, & Weese. J. W. (1993). Coaches as Leaders and Culture Builders. Applied Research in Coaching and Athletics Annual, 93-108.

Feldman, N., & Cakebread, C. (2004). Good Coach or Good Leader. Soccer Journal, 49(2), 29-31.

Frisco, J. D. (1991). The Coach as a Leader. Harold, A. R; & Packianathan, C. (1995). Leadership and Satisfaction in Athletics. Journal of Sports & Exercise Psychology (17), 276 – 293.

Harold, A., R., & Chelladurai, P. (1995). Leadership and Satisfaction in Athletics. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology (17), 276-293.

Horne, T., & Carron, V. A. (1985). Compatibility in Coach-Athlete Relationships. Journal of Sport Psychology (7), 137-149.

Jambor, E. A; & Zhang, J. J. (1997). Investigating leadership, Gender, And Coaching Level Using the Revised Leadership for Sports Scale. Journal of Sport Behavior, 20(3), 313 – 322.

Jones, B. J., Wells, J. L., Peters, E. R., & Johnson, J. D. (1982). Guide To Effective Coaching Principles & Practice (2nd ed.). Newton, Massachusetts: Allen and Bacon.

Laios, A., Theodaorakis, N., & Gargalinaos, D. (2003). Leadership and Power: Two Important Factors for Effective Coaching. International Sports Journal, 7(1), 150-154.

Mannie, K. (2005). Tough Love is in Effect Here. Perspectives on Coaching and Leadership. Coach & Athletic Journal, 74(10).

Reimer H.A., & Chelladurai, P. (1995). Leadership and Satisfaction in Athletics. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 17, 276-293.

Sage, G. (1973). The Coach as Management: Organizational Leadership in American Sport. National Association for Physical Education in Higher Education, 19, 35-40.

Straub, F. W. (Ed.). (1978). Sport Psychology an Analysis of Athlete Behavior. Syracuse, NY: Movement Publications.

Sullivan, J. P., & Kent, A. (2003). Coaching Efficacy as a Predictor of Leadership. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15(1), 1-11.

Vos Strache, C. (1979). Players’ Perceptions of Leadership Qualities for Coaches. Research Quarterly, 50(4), 679-686.

Weese, A., Maclean, J.; & Corlett, J. (1993). Coaches as Leaders and culture Builders. The Applied Research in Coaching and Athletics Journal, 93-108.

U.S. Sports Academy2013-11-25T19:24:46-06:00April 8th, 2010|Contemporary Sports Issues, Sports Coaching, Sports Management, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology|Comments Off

Making the Grade: Academic Success in Today’s Athlete

Jennifer Dilley-Knoles, North Central Texas College; Jeffrey S. Burnett, Fort Hays State University; Kayla W. Peak, Tarleton State University

Abstract

The overall importance placed on an athlete’s academic eligibility can be extremely stressful for both the coach and the student-athlete. In order to compete the athlete must remain academically eligible; thus, various academic support programs have been implemented by athletic departments as a means of maintaining eligibility and ensuring academic progress. Although these programs are vital to assisting student-athletes in accomplishing the goal of academic success, the question remains ‘Are they successful?’ This study found that academic support programs were successful as they related to female student-athlete’s overall GPA. Yet, male student-athletes were not as successful. In fact, a significant difference was found between intercollegiate sports teams and overall GPA; interestingly, all of the female sports teams had significantly higher GPAs than did their male counterparts. It appears that academic support programs are not a ‘one size fits all;’ male student-athletes may need a different type of program in order to achieve academic success. A standard format for study hall may not be an appropriate method for helping today’s athlete to ‘make the grade’.

Keywords

Academic success, academic support programs, athletics, student-athletes

Introduction

Athletics has a history of importance in American society. Across the country, newspapers have devoted entire sections and televisions have created entire channels dedicated to covering the latest updates on sports. Attention has not always been solely about games and competitions; the spotlight has recently been redirected to academics. This is quite a change since 1983, when only 25 (out of more than 16,000) high school districts had even minimal academic standards as a condition of high school sports (Edwards, 1984). Today, athletes wanting to participate in intercollegiate athletics must meet specific academic criteria before being added to a sport’s roster.

Over the last few years, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has intervened and created firm standards for academic performance among member institutions. Programs with incentive and disincentives have been created to reward sport teams that do well academically, while penalizing those that do not. Their goal is to encourage improvement of academic performance of all student-athletes on all sports teams (Meyer, 2005).

The NCAA requires member institutions to distribute graduation rates to prospective student-athletes and/or their parent(s) or guardian(s) to ensure athletes and their families are made aware of the academic reputation of the institutions they are considering. Recruits considering various universities should answer two important questions: which institution will provide the best athletic experience, and second, which will provide the best academic experience (Lucas & Lovaglia, 2005). In a 2006 report aimed to assist high school students in choosing a college, reporter Carolyn Thornton interviewed David DeBloise of the College Planning Center in Rhode Island. In Thornton’s interview, DeBloise stated that the key to choosing the right college is to find one that offers a balance of both academics and athletics. DeBloise offered a long list of questions for students preparing themselves for college. Among them: What is the school’s academic reputation, and does the school offer support services, such as a writing center, academic advising center, and computer facilities? In the conclusion of the interview, “DeBlois’ parting advice to anyone working through this process: maintain the perspective that you are a ‘student-athlete,’ not an ‘athlete-student’” (Thornton, 2006, p.13).

With academic importance and expectations increasing, universities across the country have launched a variety of academic services for their athletes. According to Foltz (1992):

Data have shown the individual student-athlete has suffered from an educational system that has not prepared him or her well for institutions of higher learning. Their training through the educational system has left a number of student-athletes with inadequate skills necessary for academic success in college. (p. 4)

In an attempt to remedy problems associated with participating in intercollegiate athletics, many institutions offer services to assist and monitor their student-athlete’s academic progress. Shining light on the area of academics may not only increase the number of athletic departments offering specialized academic support services and monitoring strategies, but may also increase the academic success of student-athletes.

Pressure placed on athletes to win may have a detrimental effect on the student’s commitment to be successful in the classroom (Lance, 2004). Although it does not justify poor or absent course work, it does illustrate the importance behind increased monitoring strategies. Role conflict may hinder a student-athlete’s ability to reconcile this dual status as both student and athlete (Sack & Thiel, 1985). While academic support services may help member institutions solve the academic problems many colleges and universities face (Hobneck, Mudge, & Turchi, 2003), the intent is to exchange the athletic performance for a quality education (Edwards, 1984).

There is a need for interference of athletic participation and academic performance (Akker, 1995). Faculty, coaches, and athletic administrators must be knowledgeable and responsive regarding the student-athlete’s academic performance. According to Peak (1995), “the student-athlete must remain academically eligible in order to participate in intercollegiate athletics” (p. 2); thus, study halls are often developed to assist struggling student-athletes.

The ability to identify possible contributing factors of academic success might be valuable in providing a basis for academic support or required study halls. Knowing a generalized history of the most rigorous academic year for students may be useful in deciding a target population to assist. In addition, athletes in some sports may rarely struggle, while some may be notorious for their academic shortcomings. Identifying whether or not there is a difference in the academic performance of female athletes and male athletes, or between freshmen/sophomores and juniors/seniors could be beneficial in creating the most advantageous academic services. Recognizing areas of potential struggle might be valuable in helping facilitate academic services for student-athletes.

During February 2005, the NCAA released its first Academic Progress Rate (APR) for Division I football and basketball programs (NCAA, 2005). The desired outcome behind the APR was to motivate athletic programs to become more involved with the academic success of their athletes, thus peaking the student’s interest in attending institutions with a higher APR. APRs are based on the eligibility and retention of student-athletes. Recruits and their parent(s) or guardian(s) find it important to know which institutions are likely to not only keep students academically eligible, but also retain the student-athletes through graduation (Lucas & Lovaglia, 2005). Distributing APRs may help prospective student-athletes become more interested in pursuing not only a successful athletic career, but also a successful academic career. The NCAA (2005) believed that, over time, the best athletes would then begin attending the successful academic schools, ultimately increasing athletic and academic success. Once the desired transition takes place, it is assumed the negative perceived relationships between athletics and academics will become positive.

Using cumulative college grade point averages (GPA) as a measure of academic performance (Foltz, 1992), studies have indicated that athletic participation has had a positive impact on academic achievement, despite the additional responsibility athletic participation requires (Sack & Thiel, 1985; Lance, 2004; Hobneck, Mudge, & Turchi, 2003). Research by Foltz (1992) found that athletes performed at a higher academic level in-season than out-of-season. Gender has become a major influence on the predictor of academic performance possibly due to the reported role conflict being greater among males versus female (Sack & Thiel, 1985). Foltz (1992) reported female athletes’ college GPAs were found to be higher than their male student-athlete counterparts. Although gender may be a predictor of possible academic stress, student-athlete classification was not. Average GPAs of freshmen were identical to the GPAs of seniors-while sophomore and junior GPAs were identical. However, Foltz (1992) found no link between type of sport participation and GPA.

A great deal of importance has been placed on academic services and there has been a strong demand for quality student-athlete support services in terms of tutorial services, academic advising, and teaching study skills (Pope & Miller, 1999). Over the last several years, the NCAA has taken many actions to strengthen its academic requirements and to provide better outcome measures. Nationwide, universities are grasping the idea behind this action and more support services and more ways to monitor academic progress are being provided to help athletes succeed. In order to assist student-athletes in accomplishing the goals of academic success and graduation, it is essential to identify areas for improvement.

Statement of the Problem

The purpose of the study was to investigate academic success, via grade point average among baseball, men/women basketball, men/women cross-country, football, men/women golf, softball, women’s tennis, men/women track and field, volleyball, and wrestling at a small NCAA Division II institution. Academic success was defined as earning a GPA of 3.0 or above. The following research questions were posed:

Would there be a significant difference in grade point averages among the intercollegiate sports teams?
Would there be a significant difference in grade point averages between the male and female student-athletes?

Methodology

The participants for this study consisted of 379 male and female collegiate student-athletes who participated in any of the following sports during the 2006-2007 academic year at the institution being researched. Of the 379 participants, there were 266 males and 113 females who comprised the 14 sports teams (see Table 1).

Table 1
Subjects – By Gender and By Sport

Sport	Male	Female
Baseball	40	n/a
Basketball	16	16
Cross-Country	12	06
Football	90	n/a
Golf	06	06
Softball	n/a	17
Tennis	n/a	12
Track ∓ Field	60	40
Volleyball	n/a	16
Wrestling	42	n/a
Total	266	113

The eligibility rosters were obtained through the University’s compliance coordinator and contained all student-athletes eligible or ineligible to compete during the 2006-2007 season. Only student-athletes who were on a team for the consecutive fall 2006 and spring 2007 semester were used for the study; all other participants were excluded. The participation statistics for each sport were obtained through the head coach and the compliance coordinator at the institution. As an additional criterion, only student-athletes who participated in a contest or match were used for the study; all other participants were excluded. Thus, reducing the total population for the study to 251 student-athletes (N=251).

A 4.0 scale was used as the measurement value of grade point average. The points per credit hour earned were assigned as follows: each credit of A = 4 points; each credit of B = 3 points; each credit of C = 2 points; each credit of D = 1 point; each credit of F = 0 points. Cumulative GPA was calculated by dividing the total points earned by the number of credit hours attempted.

The registrar’s office provided information related to each student-athletes’ academic status and GPA. The data was then analyzed to determine if there was a difference in academic success among intercollegiate sports teams and gender using GPA. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences 16.0 was used to calculate the statistics. For the purpose of this study, the alpha level was set at .05.

Results

Utilizing an ANOVA to analyze the data, the results of this study yielded that there was a significant difference in grade point averages between intercollegiate sports teams. Since the significance of the 2-tailed test was less than the alpha level at .05, there was a significant difference between grade point averages and sports (see Table 2).

Table 2
Grade Point Averages between Intercollegiate Sports Teams

	Grade Point Averages	Intercollegiate Sports Teams
Mean	2.9650	8.48
N	251	251
Standard Deviation	.56963	4.179
Significance	.000

In order to determine which sports teams had significantly different grade point averages, the researcher conducted a Between-Subjects Effects test (see Table 3). The results showed that there was a significant difference in grade point average among all of the female sports (basketball, cross-country, golf, tennis, track, softball, and volleyball) as compared to the other intercollegiate sports teams (see Table 4).

Table 3
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Source	Type III Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Corrected Model	14.536	1	14.536	54.358	.000
Intercept	2069.314	1	2069.314	7738.47	.000
Gender	14.536	1	14.536	54.358	.000
Error	66.584	249	0.267
Total	2287.688	251
Corrected Total	81.120	250

Table 4
Means per Intercollegiate Sports Teams

Sport	Mean	Standard Deviation	N

Baseball (M)	2.9276	0.43374	33
Basketball (F)	3.2773	0.47559	11
Basketball (M)	2.555	0.6663	12
Cross-Country (F)	3.4362	0.52196	13
Cross-Country (M)	2.7436	0.65531	11
Football(M)	2.7454	0.5336	50
Golf (F)	3.246	0.46231	5
Golf (M)	2.8986	0.4482	7
Softball (F)	3.1831	0.49035	13
Tennis (F)	3.33	0.56353	7
Track (F)	3.2465	0.45389	26
Track (M)	2.8295	0.63888	38
Volleyball (F)	3.5575	0.2307	8
Wrestling (M)	2.7747	0.33834	17
Total	2.965	0.56963	251

Lastly, the researcher concluded that the female student-athletes had a significantly higher grade point average than the male student-athletes (see Table 5).

Table 5
Gender (Dependent Variable: GPA)

			95% Confidence Interval
Gender	Mean	Standard Error	Lower Bound	Upper Bound
Male	2.796	0.04	2.717	2.874
Female	3.307	0.057	3.196	3.419

Conclusion

Based upon the results of this study, the following conclusions were drawn:

A significant difference was found between grade point averages and the various intercollegiate sports teams.
A significant difference was found between male and female student-athletes as it related to their grade point averages.

Discussion

It is apparent that this research study affirms the trend of female student-athletes performing at significantly higher academic levels than their male counterparts. Yet, academic support programs, for both male and female student-athletes, have been a mainstay within most athletic departments since the mid-1980s. As professionals, we must ask ourselves why many male student-athletes continue to earn lower GPAs than their female peers. We must also ask ourselves how we may be able to close this academic gap. What programs can be implemented to ensure the overall success of both genders, yet concentrate on those athletes, mostly males, who may struggle academically? Perhaps it is not just a matter of academic support services and study halls; rather the trend is directly related to role conflicts and adjustments to collegiate life. Serious thought should be given to the long-term academic success of the student-athlete. The NCAA has been proactive in establishing programs to try to help ensure student-athlete success. These programs are vital in assisting student-athletes accomplish their goals of academic and athletic success. However, the formula for success is a dynamic and holistic concept and may require uniquely different approaches as it relates to each intercollegiate sports team as well as gender. The old adage “one size fits all” may not be an appropriate method for helping today’s athlete to make the grade.

Discussion

Akker, K.V. (1995). Athletic participation and the academic achievement of athletes. Unpublished master’s thesis, Ball State University, IN.

Edwards, H. (1984). The collegiate athletic arms race: Origins and implications of the ‘Rule 48’ controversy. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 8, 4-22.

Foltz, R.A. (1992). Academic achievement of student-athletes. Unpublished master’s thesis, Fort Hays State University, KS.

Hobneck, C., Mudge, L., & Turchi, M. (2003). Improving student athlete academic success and retention. Saint Xavier University, Chicago, IL.

Lance, L.M. (2004). Gender differences in perceived role conflict among university student-athletes. College Student Journal, 38(2), 179-190.

Lucas, J.W., & Lovaglia, M.J. (2005). Can academic progress help collegiate football teams win? The Sport Journal, 8(3). Retrieved from http://www.thesportjournal.org/

Meyer, S.K. (2005). NCAA academic reforms: Maintaining the balance between academics and athletics. Phi Kappa Phi Forum, 85(3), 15-18.

National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2005, February). Academic progress rate data report information. Retrieved from http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/Misc_Committees_DB/CAP/Membership%20Teleconference%20Materials/February%202005/APR_Data_Report_Information.pdf

Peak, K.W. (1995). An investigation of the academic progress of selected intercollegiate athletes involved in two types of academic support programs. Unpublished master’s thesis, East Texas State University, TX.

Pope, M.L., & Miller, M.T. (1999). Support services for student-athletes: Athletic department and student affairs officers perceptions. (ERIC Document, Reproductions Service No. ED437886).

Sack, A.L., & Thiel, R. (1985). College basketball and role conflict: A national survey. Sociology of Sport Journal, 2, 195-209.

Thornton, C. (2006, July 17). College-bound athletes need to assess ability. The Providence Journal. Retrieved May 4, 2009, from http://www.projo.com/sports/content/projo_200060618_spparent3.1f1d7724.html

U.S. Sports Academy2017-08-03T10:33:56-05:00January 8th, 2010|Contemporary Sports Issues, Sports Management, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology|Comments Off