Sports Management – Page 22 – The Sport Journal

Student-Athlete Participation in Intercollegiate Athletic Decision-Making: Inclusion through Different Domains of Governance

Eric Snyder

ABSTRACT

This investigation focused on literature related to student-athlete involvement and input in intercollegiate athletic governance. The aim was to develop support for understanding and justifying differences in the level of involvement a student-athlete may have when considering multiple areas of governance. Results revealed that the various claims for and against student involvement should not been seen as mutually exclusive when seeking to understand and justify formal student-athlete involvement in intercollegiate athletic decision-making. Rather, together they provide a complex lens for analyzing and changing the contributions of student-athletes in different domains of intercollegiate athletic governance. Athletic administrators and other stakeholders should consider each domain and incorporate student-athletes into their governance process appropriately.

INTRODUCTION

The economic activity produced from consumer interests in intercollegiate athletic contests in America is profound. Schnaars, C., Upton, J., Mosemak, J, & DeRamus, K. (2012) report published in USA Today identified the largest intercollegiate athletic budget for a single institution surpassed 150 million in 2011. Currently, CBS network and Time Warner are paying over 10.8 billion for rights to broadcast the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) men’s basketball tournament through the year 2024 (Kramer, 2010). As the financial stakes increase within intercollegiate sport, the NCAA and individual institutions continue to create bylaws and policies which will undoubtedly impact a student-athletes experience in higher education.

Because of the power that athletic departments exert on campuses and within their surrounding communities, there is potential for concern by individuals associated with intercollegiate athletics and the way in which the programs operate. The purpose of this paper is to focus on those persons for whom the universities, corporate entities, the NCAA and sports networks are indebted to for providing entertainment to fans since the first documented intercollegiate athletic event in 1827. Beginning in the early 20th century, the NCAA and other stakeholders have continued to deny student-athletes a voice or place in the governance of college sports in the United States (Branch, 2011). This investigation will focus on literature related to student-athlete involvement and input in intercollegiate athletic governance. Moreover, the aim is to develop support for understanding and justifying differences in the level of involvement a student-athlete may have when considering multiple areas of governance.

Initially, the researcher will provide a brief introduction into the historical origins of student-athlete involvement in intercollegiate athletic governance and then present an integrative review and discussion of the literature, with specific focus on the various reasons for and against student involvement in athletic decision-making. In order to elaborate on this point, one must realize that different perceptions of student-athletes may represent a justification into certain perceptions of existing power holders; (1) student-athletes can be viewed as stakeholders (2) student-athletes can be viwed as consumers, and (3) student-athletes can be viewed as members of the athletic community. The argument will be made that different perceptions of student-athletes and related claims regarding their involvement in intercollegiate athletics do not have to be treated as mutually exclusive. Instead, researchers, university administrators, corporate sponsors, and athletic personnel should envision through an intricate lens the nature and extent of student-athlete involvement in different domains of intercollegiate athletic governance.

For instance, the notion of a student-athlete as an athletic community member applies more readily to matters of the CHAMPS/Lifeskills program, while claims arguing they are consumers of higher education gain prominence in academic support services. The final portion of the article reveals that student-athlete involvement in intercollegiate athletic governance can be included in different areas of athletic governance (i.e., academic affairs, policy, finance), thus providing a new lens for understanding and/or justifying an increased involvement of student-athletes in intercollegiate athletic decision-making.

Historical View of Student Athlete Involvement in Governance
The student role in governance of sport can be traced historically to the birth of Oxford in 1167 (Smith, 1988). Here, the organizational nature and governance reflected the elite status of the study body. Sport participation was valued and organized by the affluent. Sports such as boating, cricket, horse racing, hunting, and tennis were all popular as institutions continued to develop well into the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries. According to Smith (1988) these sporting events were rarely well-organized and often drew the scorn of university officials. The governance of these early college sporting events resembled Bologna University and their “student university” model where students would organize in a group and control the curriculum and organization of their studies. However, the difference between Bologna and organized sport was the intention to participate in sport activities rather than scholarship.

A combination of the ease of access to participants within the university and the authority to govern sporting events made way for increased growth and interest in athletic competition. Student leaders of sporting events were able to name the time, place, stakes, and rules of the contest (Smith, 1988). For this reason, the enthusiasm generated from early competitions in Europe eventually made their way across the pond to both Yale and Harvard. By the 1840’s Yale and Harvard had established bona fide rowing clubs, the first organized sports clubs in American colleges (Lewis, 1970; Smith, 1988).

Much like their English counterparts, the American college students were the leaders of the intercollegiate athletic movement. As early as the 1780’s participation in horse races, betting on cock-fights, and hunting of wild game were known to exist between students at the College of William and Mary (Smith, 1988). The student culture of the American college was organized with athletic teams and clubs that were beyond the control of university presidents, deans, and faculty (Smith, 1988; Miller, 1987; Watterson, 1988; Thelin, 1996). However, as spectators and interests in sporting events continued, the dominance of students and marginalization of faculty, alumni, and collegiate leaders in sporting decisions began to decline (Smith, 1988). For example: Horse racing and betting at the College of William and Mary was so strong and so much at cross purposes with the goals of the institution that college officials banned students from keeping horses, making races, or betting on those made by others (p. 9).

Later, college presidents within national magazines began to influence the public view of college football through emotive inscriptions of the injuries and abuses of the game (Thelin, 1996). In 1904, it was documented that 20 players were killed during intercollegiate football games (Sack & Staurowsky, 1998). The public outcry over the violence and the addition of Theodore Roosevelt’s concern provoked the first successful of many previously attempted reform efforts (e.g., 1898 Brown University Conference, 1892 Charles Eliot Institutional Control Effort, 1884 Intercollegiate Association of Amateur Athletics of America). In 1905, the Intercollegiate Athletic Association of the United States formed (IAAUS). It was not until five years later that this group adopted its current name the National Collegiate Athletic Association.

As important as the creation of the NCAA was to the development of specific sporting rules, the ability to actually govern and gain administrative control of the structure and fiscal portions was not obtained until the 1930’s (Lawrence, 1987). Prior to this many alumni, athletic directors, and coaches had attempted to garner much of the administrative power from the student body (Thelin, 1996). An example can be found in 1909 within Yale’s Athletic Association (YAA) which was run by students and alumni: Undergraduate Robert Moses sought to break Walter Camp’s hegemony by creating the Yale Minor Sports Association—an effort that at first bemused, then angered, Camp. To thwart the renegade student movement headed by Moses, Camp called in chips owed to him by campus administrators; the dean of the college tried unsuccessfully to dissuade Moses from his new endeavor (p. 20).

Over the decades, however, continued struggles for power existed. The commercialized nature of intercollegiate sport had become too profitable for the NCAA, universities, and corporate entities to allow the student body to remain in control. The addition of academic eligibility, amateurism, and competition rules by the NCAA expanded the lack of student involvement in athletic governance (Thelin, 1996). Subsequently, much like history of higher education, where the pre-modern experience of the student university in Bologna gradually faded into distant memory with the adoption of the Parisian model, the pre-modern student athletic organizations faded into distant memory with the adoption of the NCAA and its increased membership (Perkin, 2006).

Since the decrease in student-athlete involvement in intercollegiate athletic governance, five significant national studies have been published: (1) the 1929 Carnegie Foundation Study; (2) the 1952 Presidents’ Report for the American Council on Education; (3) George Hanford’s 1974 study for the American Council on Education; and (4) the 1991 Knight Foundation Commission Study (5) 2007 Knight Foundation Commission Study (Thelin, 1996, Knorr, 2004). Occurring in different decades, each study focused on a specific issue related to intercollegiate athletics. Most important in regards to student-athlete involvement in intercollegiate governance was the 1929 Carnegie Foundation Study which called for restoration of student control (Savage, 1953). Specific issues within the other remaining studies included low graduation rates, lowering of academic entrance requirements for athletes; uncontrolled spending for facilities, escalating compensation for coaches, the manipulation of schedules to accommodate television, and the big-business element continues to drive athletic departments to acquire corporate sponsorships (Knorr, 2004). Telander (1989) may have been most accurate when he explained that coaches are concerned with winning, athletic directors are concerned with generating revenue, and presidents are concerned with the prestige of the institution. The lack of mention or emphasis on student-athlete development or involvement in governance seems to have been disregarded and besieged by the concern and growth of commercialism.

NCAA and Student Involvement
Prior to the 1980’s the NCAA governed only male sports (Crowley, Joseph, Pickle, & Clarkson, 2006). The NCAA differed from The Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women (AIAW), which was at one time the largest governing organization for intercollegiate athletics in the United States, because the AIAW included student-athletes in its governance process from its inception (Willey, 1996). Student-athletes were able to serve on committees which were recognized at both the national and regional levels. Voting status concerning competition, eligibility, and financial aid was granted to student-athletes. In addition, student-athletes were allowed to serve on appeal committees to review student-athletes complaints or issues (Hendricks, 2011). In order to stay competitive, the AIAW moved away from these ideals, and, by its demise in 1982, appeared to be strikingly similar to the commercial professional model of the men (Smith, 2010).

Given the lack of regard for student involvement in the reform studies and the collapse of the AIAW; it is not surprising that it was not until eight decades after its inception that the NCAA adopted the first formal inclusion of student-athletes into their governance structure with the association wide formation of the Student Athletic Advisory Committees (SAAC) (Hendricks, 2011). Prior to the SAAC, areas such as academic eligibility, amateurism, health and safety and competition rules had been the regulation purview of the NCAA (Braziel, 1997). The SAAC was formed to review and offer student-athlete input of NCAA activities and legislation. Its purpose is to ensure that the student-athlete voice was accounted for at all NCAA member institutions (NCAA, 2012).

Eventually the idea of allowing student-athlete representation at the national level led to the creation of SAAC at each NCAA division institution. This suggests that the NCAA recognizes that student-athletes deserve a voice in intercollegiate athletics. However, the limited power of the SAAC is obvious. In 1995, the National SAAC expressed concern over a proposal set forth by the Oversight Committee of the NCAA Membership Structure (Braziel, 1997). Under the new restructuring model, the NCAA adopted a new voting system. The proposed plan was designed to increase university accountability and simplify the governing process. However, the SAAC argued that the change destroyed the already restricted voice student-athletes had in the governing process. Today, the national SAAC consists of 80 members serving on the national Division I, II and III committees (NCAA, 2012). The committee continues to push for an increase in student-athlete involvement as described in a letter written during the late 2000’s by the chair of the Division-I national SAAC (Piscetelli, 2006).

Over the course of history, there has been considerable variability regarding student involvement and input in intercollegiate athletic decision-making. From the early 1700’s when students exercised complete autonomy in regards to sporting events; to the failed reform attempts by administrators, alumni, and faculty during the 19th century; to the development of the NCAA; to the Carnegie Report of 1929 calling for presidents and alumni to return power to the student body; to our current day model with the SAAC.
This historical overview can be used as a source for understanding variations in student-athlete involvement in intercollegiate athletic decision-making. The literature provides no secure grounds on which to establish a reason or justification for student-athlete inclusion in intercollegiate athletic governance. In the following sections, the paper therefore considers different reason for and against student athlete involvement in intercollegiate athletic governance articulated from a variety of perspectives.

METHODOLOGY

According to Mouton (2001), philosophical analysis is concerned with ‘questions of meaning, explanation, and understanding and such studies are typically aimed at analyzing arguments in favor of or against a particular position. The core of this paper is based on an extensive review of scholarly books and publications via searches of academic literature. Multiple searches and search strategies were employed addressing the question of student-athlete involvement in intercollegiate athletic decision-making. This includes searches through; university libraries, database searches included ERIC, Academic Search Premier, and Google Scholar. Keywords included student-athlete governance, student-athlete participation, student-athlete involvement, student-athlete protests, and student-athlete government. The various searches provided a plethora of resources covering over fifty years of scholarship.

The final selection of sources was driven by theoretical considerations and the aim of the study, whereby only a fraction of the original sources could be utilized. Preference was given to peer-reviewed journal articles and chapters in books that showcase the debate within the intercollegiate athletic community and directly engage with the question; how student athlete involvement in athletic department decision-making may be justified? The result is a historical-philosophical analysis and discussion of key arguments for and against the involvement of student-athletes in intercollegiate athletic decision making.

Reasons for and against student-athlete involvement in university decision-making will be articulated from a variety of perspectives: (1) student-athletes as stakeholders (2) students-athletes as consumers; (3) student-athletes as members of a community. This section discusses the various ways in which the case for the formal inclusion of student-athletes in intercollegiate athletic decision-making has been made in the literature.

RESULTS

The power of student-athletes as a political member has been illustrated most recently in the extensive pressures provided through a non-NCAA sponsored organization known as the National College Players Association (NCPA). The NCPA has been on the front line fighting for student-athlete concerns ranging from: increases in scholarships monies, holding universities responsible for player’s sport-related medical expenses, increased graduation rates, protected educational opportunities for student athletes in good academic standing, elimination of restrictions on legitimate employment, and modification to current transfer rules (NCPA, 2012). Over the course of 3 years, the NCPA has expanded to include over 15,000 members consisting of both current and former NCAA student-athletes (NCPA, 2012)

The NCPA has successfully collaborated with other external organization (i.e., Knight Commission, Coalition of Intercollegiate Athletics) to pressure the NCAA and its constituents into making reforms by publishing research and exposing issues to media outlets such as CBS, 60 minutes, ESPN, Fox Sports, Sports Illustrated, The Wall Street Journal, the Chronicle of Higher Education, and numerous radio programs (NCPA, 2012). More recently, the organization collected over 300 Division I football and basketball student-athlete signatures petitioning for a share in NCAA revenues (Zagier, 2011). While the NCPA continues to support the student-athlete, historical accounts of student-athletes on campus advocating for increased involvement in intercollegiate athletic decision-making has been masked and needs to be revealed.

One of the first documented organized efforts by student-athletes to battle big-time college athletics occurred in the mid 1930’s. The lack of jobs for players, healthy food, and insufficient medical goods influenced the Howard University Bison’s to boycott participation in football games (Fram & Frampton, 2012). In 1937, the University of Pittsburgh undefeated football season resulted in uncertainty and unrest between players and the university (Oriard, 2001). In this instance, the players organized and demanded compensation of $200 dollars for their participation in the season culminating Rose Bowl. The university disagreed to the terms resulting in players increasing their demands of the institution the following season. The players believed they should be provided four-year athletic scholarships, accommodations for missed classes, and collective bargaining rights (Fram & Frampton, 2012).

Fast forwarding to the 1992-93 academic year, unified student-athletes at University of Oklahoma demonstrated their power to facilitate change by refusing to practice (Blum, 1993). The collective strategy required the coaches to cancel practice and provide the players a platform to vocalize their dissatisfaction with the team and its coaching staff. Furthermore, a similar event occurred at Morgan State where school officials canceled the last scheduled football game because they feared that the team would stage a half-time protest to show its disgust of the head coach. In this instance, the team demanded the removal of the head coach, whom they accused of being verbally and physically abusive (Blum, 1993). The issue was resolved with the firing of the head coach.

A more recent event occurred at University of California, Davis in 2010 where student-athletes silently marched into the institutions gymnasium in order to protest the possible elimination of funding for certain sports teams. The silent sit-in protest included the gathering of signatures and occupying of the first floor lobby where the Office of Student Affairs was located (Tsan, 2010). The petition was presented to the Chancellor with hopes to influence the administrations decision. The results were not in favor of the student-athlete when they received news that four of the 27 university sports teams would be cut. However, a positive of the outcome was those student-athletes who were provided grant-in-aid were still able to receive funding for their remaining years at the institution.

These examples illustrate that student-athletes are cognizant of the potential for collective action on and off the playing fields. Although their efforts have been confined primarily to athletic issues, the precedent for successful collective action has been shown to include a variety of student-athlete concerns. Therefore, the political argument for student-athlete involvement in intercollegiate athletic decision-making exists.

The political argument is centered on the idea that student-athletes are internal stakeholders (i.e., politically significant constituents of intercollegiate athletics). “Stakeholders are persons or groups that have or claim, ownership, rights, or interests in a business and its activities, past, present, or future (Clarkson, 1995, p 106).” According to Harrison & Freeman, (1999) addressing the perspective of various stakeholders is socially responsible organizational behavior. Therefore, with democratic governance by stakeholders being commonplace in universities (Morrow, 1998), it remains troubling to think that the NCAA seems to have adopted a more monolithic approach. The NCAA’s influences along with other stakeholders (i.e., sports networks, faculty, corporations, and conference commissioners) have continued to deny student-athletes a legitimate place at the table. Those stakeholders who currently have a voice must recognize that the athletic culture is composed of competing, internal stakeholders, all of which must be heard and accommodated (Boland, 2005).

Additional research was completed by Thompson (1972) analyzing the political functions and consequences of formally including the general student population into university governance. Thompson (1972) found that when general students are incorporated into the governance process as stakeholders, they are quickly exposed to the complexity of issues, the recognition of the consequences of decisions, and the development of personal commitments. Consequently, loyalties develop through the inclusion of the governed and in return major impulses are deflated (i.e., student athlete protests or revolts will not occur).

As a result, formal student-athlete involvement in intercollegiate athletic decision-making would provide, on the one hand, an alternative to tactics of coercion through organizations like the NCPA and future disruption or protests by student-athletes. On the other hand, the inclusions might also moderate the partisan views of other member of the intercollegiate athletic community and thus create less adversarial relationships between the current intercollegiate athletic powers.

Student-Athletes as Consumers
As opposed to the political argument for the involvement of all stakeholders through democratic governance, an additional argument for student-athlete involvement in intercollegiate athletic decision-making can be made with reference to the role and function of student-athletes as consumers of higher education. This case involves different viewpoints of student-athletes as well as intercollegiate athletic departments. The student-athlete is viewed as a consumer of higher education, whereas, the athletic department and university are viewed as a service provider in a contractual relationship with the student-athlete. As the service provider makes decisions, the student-athletes experience the consequences. For that reason, it seems the student athletes should be provided the right to partake in decision-making.

However, student athletes are a diverse group and diversity can be both a strength and weakness to the consumer argument. Besides gender, student-athletes are diverse economically, racially, socially, and geographically. These differences can create distinct issues for the internal structure and goals of student-athlete involvement in governance. For example, what do student-athletes desire from the NCAA and athletic departments? Student-athletes in revenue-producing sports may want increased profit or revenue sharing. Student-athletes in nonrevenue-producing sports may want increased scholarships. Women athletics may want equal funding. The diverse individual interests of student-athletes could potentially destroy the consumer argument because the variety of goals associated with the consumer.

Therefore, it is critical that student-athletes in terms of political influence determine at least one common goal in their involvement in governance. As consumers, it seems education would be the most appropriate choice because it remains a commonality among the student-athlete population.

Student Athletes as Members of the Athletic Community
An additional argument first explored by Wolff (1969) argues general student participation in decision making can be justified by virtue of students being members of a community. Without a doubt, the notion of students as full members of the academic community still carries currency in studies that seek to make a case for general student rights to involvement in university decision making (Bergan, 2004; Lizzio, A. & Wilson, K, 2009). According to Wolff (1969) ‘a community of persons united by collective understandings, by common goals, by bonds of reciprocal obligation, and by a flow of sentiment makes the preservation of the community an object of desire, not merely a matter of prudence.’ This communitarian view of the university can be easily transferred to a communitarian view of intercollegiate athletic departments. Consequently, an argument for inclusion of student-athletes involvement in athletic decision-making through the community domain exists.

However, an argument may exist against student-athletes as full members of an athletic department’s community. One could argue that student-athletes by definition and in practice are only temporary members of this community, whose commitment to intercollegiate athletics mission may be diminutive. Thus, students are not likely to be personally affected when decisions they have been partial to actually take effect since they will have left campus by then (Zuo and Ratsoy, 1999). Others could point out that characteristically intercollegiate athletic departments are not democratic communities but rather are structured in a fairly rigid professional hierarchy of athletic expertise and seniority. Therefore, student-athletes are at best, novices and junior members of the intercollegiate athletic community.

Is it appropriate for student-athletes to claims to having an equal voice and equal authority in intercollegiate athletic governance or should their voice be tempered in view of their limited knowledge and experience? Many of the stakeholders today would argue the student-athletes authority should be weighed against the competencies of other groups within the intercollegiate athletics community; in particular, those of the faculty, coaches, administrators, and corporate entities. Therefore, the argument is that authority should reside with the credentialed rather than the less expert. However, Thompson (1972) argues that the involvement by all major groups in governing the university has important benefits, such as a better quality of decisions. In the case of students-athletes, the potential educational benefit of participating in decision-making of intercollegiate athletics should be seen as a means to pursue the educational purposes of the university.

The argument for formal student involvement in intercollegiate athletic decision-making as a means to instill democratic norms and values in students as future citizens carries a strong message. Active citizenship is one of a number of potentially positive consequences of student inclusion. Thompson (1972) notes that by widening the circle of participants in decision-making to include others (i.e., student-athletes), the results may reveal positive educational effects in different respects. Student-athlete involvement is not only for the benefit of the student athletes themselves, but it is also likely to improve the quality of decisions and acceptance of decisions. In these regards, the inclusion of students in intercollegiate decision-making contributes to the pursuit of the institutions and the NCAA mission.

DISCUSSION AND APPLICATION

The historical-philosophical debate analyzed in the previous section shows that the meaning and justification of student-athlete involvement in intercollegiate athletic decision-making can be understood with reference to different views of the student-athlete. These different conceptions provide a means for understanding the nature and extent of student-athlete involvement in different contexts and domains of intercollegiate athletic decision-making. When considering formal student-athlete involvement in the various domains of intercollegiate athletic governance student athletes as stakeholders, consumers, and members of the athletic community claims come to play in various combinations.

Governance of Policy
The involvement of students in intercollegiate athletic decisions dealing with policy involves considerations of students’ expertise both as low-ranking members of the athletic community and users of athletic department and institutional services. The nature and extent of student-athlete involvement will vary with regard to the setting (academic policy, team policy, department policy, and NCAA policy). Additionally, the nature of the issues under considerations must be evaluated (e.g., staffing, marketing, compliance, academic affairs).

Governance of Academic and Student Affairs
Extra-curricular involvement in intercollegiate athletics dealing with matters of the Champs/Lifeskills programs, fundraisers, and so forth, offers extensive opportunity for student involvement in decision-making. Here students are clearly the most interested and affected members of the community; as users of services and facilities for student development, their lived experience offers invaluable expertise in decision-making. Moreover, as student athletes they have certain rights and responsibilities associated with governing their own lives. Students acceptance of and support for decisions taken in this domain of governance is particularly crucial and students collective power to demand or reject certain decisions must be seriously taken into account.

Governance of Finance and Planning
A complex combination of different reasons for and against formal student involvement comes into play when considering the nature and extent of student-athlete involvement in financial decision making. In certain contexts, student-athletes may have been able to carve a niche historically as a political constituency that needs to be consulted and formally involved. Student-athlete involvement in this domain may engross the recognition of certain participatory rights of students as adults and citizens. However, the increasingly dominant view of student athletes as transient users and consumers indicates that such high-level participation can be only marginal. An example of one scenario where student-athletes may successfully lobby for a seat at the decision-making table would be an issue such as social media monitoring or banning for student-athletes.

CONCLUSION

This illustrative application of different claims and related views of student-athletes proves that they are not exclusive to a specific domain of governance. Rather, the goal was to provide in combination a heuristic lens for considering student-athlete involvement. The researcher has outlined the history of student-athlete involvement in university governance and analyzed multiple arguments for and against formal student-athlete involvement. The task involved a review of the literature and has yielded reasons for and against the consideration of increased student-athlete involvement in intercollegiate athletic decision-making. It has been argued that the various claims for and against student involvement, and related perceptions of students, should not been seen as mutually exclusive when seeking to understand and justify formal student-athlete involvement in intercollegiate athletic decision-making. Athletic administrators, faculty, and other current stakeholders should consider each domain and incorporate student-athletes into their governance process appropriately.

REFERENCES

American Council on Education. (1952). Report on the special committee on athletic policy.Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education.

Bergan, S. (2004) Higher education governance and democratic participation: the university and
democratic culture, in S. Bergan (ed.) The university as res publica: Higher education governance, student participation and the university as a site of citizenship. Strasbourg: Europe, 13-30.

Boland, J. A. (2005). Student participation in shared governance: A means of advancing democratic values? Tertiary Education and Management, 11, 199-217.

Branch. T (2011). The cartel: Inside the rise and imminent fall of the NCAA. San Francisco,California: Byliner Inc.

Braziel, M. L. (1997). United we stand: Organizing student-athletes for educational reform. Sports Lawyers Journal, 4, 81-112.

Blum, E. D. (1993). Series of Locker-Room Revolts Has Some Wondering About the Clout Of Athletes. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved July 10, 2012.

Clarkson, M.B.E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20, 92-117.

Crowley, Joseph N., David Pickle, and Rich Clarkson. 2006. In the Arena: The NCAA’s First Century. Indianapolis, IN: NCAA.

Fram, N. & Frampton, W (2012). A union of amateurs: A legal blueprint to reshape big-time college athletics. Buffalo Law Review, 60, 1003-1078.

Hanford. G. H. (1974). An inquiry into the need for and feasibility of a national study of intercollegiate athletics. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education.

Harrison, J.S., & Freeman, R. E. (1999). Stakeholder, social responsibility, and performance: Empirical evidence and theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 479.485.

Hendricks, L. (2011). Perceptions of stakeholder salience for NCAA campus student-athlete advisory committees. Ph.D. Dissertation: University of Michigan. Retrieved from Dissertation and Abstracts.

Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics. (1991). Keeping Faith with the student-athlete: A new model for intercollegiate athletics. Charlotte, N.C: Knight Foundation

Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics. (2001). A call to action: Reconnecting college sports and higher education. Miami: Knight Foundation.

Knorr, J. (2004). Athletics on Campus: Refocusing on Academic Outcomes. Phi Kappa Phi Forum 84 (4).

Kramer, S. (2010). New NCAA 14-year, $10.8 billion deal with Turner & CBS changes terms for March Madness on demand. Paid Content, retrieved September 26, 2012 from: http://paid content.org/2010/04/22/419-new-ncaa-14-year-10-8-billion-deal-with-turner-and-cbs-changes-ter/

Lawrence, P. (1987). Unsportsmanlike Conduct: The NCAA and thebusiness of college football. New York: Praeger Publishers.

Lewis, G. (1970). The beginning of organized collegiate sport. American Quarterly, 22(2), 222-229.

Lizzio, A. & Wilson, K (2009). Student participation in university governance: The role conceptions and sense of efficacy of student representatives on departmental committees. Studies in Higher Education, 34(1), 69-84.

Miller, P (1987). Athletes in Academe, College Sports and American Culture, 1850-1920. Ph.D.Dissertation: UC Berkeley.

Morrow, W. (1998). Stakeholders and senates: the governance of higher education institutions in South Africa. Cambridge Journal of Education, 28, 385-405.

Mouton, J. (2001). How to succeed in your Master’s & Doctoral studies. Pretoria: Van Schaik.

National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2012). Student-Athlete Advisory Committee. Indianapolis, IN: Author.

National College Players Association. (2012). Mission and Goals. Retrieved from http://www.ncpanow.org/more?id=0004

Oriard, M. (2001). King football: Sport and spectacle in the golden age of radio, newsreels,movies & magazine, the weekly & the daily press. Chapel Hill and London: University of North Carolina Press.

Perkin, H. (2006). History of universities, in J.F.J. Forest and P.G. Altbach (eds) International
Handbook of Higher Education. 159-205.

Piscetelli, M. (2006). Opportunity fund needs athlete input. NCAA News, 43(3), 4, 16.

Sack, A. L., & Staurowsky, E. J. (1998). College Athletes for Hire: The Evolution and Legacy of the NCAA Amateur Myth. Westport, CT: Praeger Press.

Savage, H. (1953). Fruit of an impulse: Forty-five years of the Carnegie Foundation, 1905-1950. New York: Harcourt, Brace.

Schnaars, C., Upton, J., Mosemak, J, & DeRamus, K. (2012). USA TODAY sports college athletics finances. USA Today. Retrieved September 26, 2012 from:http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/story/2012-05-14/ncaa-college-athletics-finances-database/54955804/

Smith, R. A. (2010). Pay for Play: A history of big time college athletic reform. Champagne: University of Illinois Press.

Smith, R. A. (1988). Sports and freedom; The rise of big-time college athletics. New York: Oxford University Press.

Telander, R. (1989). The hundred yard line: The corruption of college football and what we can do to stop it. New York, Simon and Schuster.

Thelin, J. R. (1996). Games colleges play: Scandal and reform in intercollegiate athletics. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins. University Press.

Thompson, D.F. (1972). Democracy and the governing of the university. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 404, 157-169.

Tsan, L. (2010). Student-athletes hold silent sit-in to protest the loss of sports. The California Aggie. Retrieved July 8, 2012 from http://www.theaggie.org/2010/04/15/student-athletes- hold-silent-sitin-to-protest-the-loss-of-sports/

Watterson, J.S. (1988). “Inventing Modern Football.” American Heritage. Sept./Oct., pp. 102-113.

Willy, S. (1996). The governance of women’s intercollegiate athletics: Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women (AIAW), 1976-1982. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.

Wolff, R.P. (1969) The ideal of the university. Boston: Beacon Press.

Zagier, A, S. (2011). College athletes press NCAA reform. Associated Press retrieved from http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slub=txncaathletesrights

Zuo, B. and Ratsoy, E. (1999). Student participation in university governance. Canadian Journal of higher Education 29, 1-26.

U.S. Sports Academy2013-11-22T22:33:55-06:00April 2nd, 2013|Contemporary Sports Issues, Sports Exercise Science, Sports Management, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology|Comments Off

Sport in the Magisterium of Benedict XVI

Bishop Josef Clemens

Philosophical Foundations of the Sporting Phenomenon

More than thirty years ago on June 1, 1978, at the start of the World Cup that was being held in Argentina (June 1 – 25, 1978) and was marked by bitter defeat for the Germans, the fifty year old Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger,already one year as Archbishop of Munich-Freising, explained the nucleus of his thought on soccer and sport in general in an interview on the Bavarian Radio program “Zum Sonntag” (Ordinariats-Korrespondenz, 1978; see also Pfister, 2006; Deutsche Tagespost, 1978; Benedetta, 2009).

I would like to use as a leitmotif of this investigation, this profound and original interview, in which the Cardinal and theologian offers a brief philosophical analysis of the modern phenomenon of sport and soccer in particular. This will help us to better understand the typically brief but numerous comments that Pope Benedict XVI has made about sport throughout his Pontificate.

It does not seem that Cardinal Ratzinger as head of Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (1981-2005) dealt with the phenomenon of soccer or sport in general, but he did include this interview in an anthology of texts published in 1985 and also as Pope he permitted it to be included in a publication printed in 2005 (Ratzinger, 1985; see also Benedikt and Ratzinger, 2005; “Mitarbeiter der Wahrheit, Gedanken für jeden Tag,” 1992; Benedikt and Ratzinger 2009). All of this indicates the perennial value of these fundamental reflections on the phenomenon of modern sport.

The Attraction of the Sports Phenomenon

The first aspect that I would like to bring our attention to is that the Cardinal speaks of soccer as “a ‘global event’, that irrespective of boundaries, links humanity around the world in one and the same state of tension: in its hopes, its fears, its emotions and joys” (Ratzinger, 1992). This observation, made thirty years ago, is all the more valid today given the enormous expansion of soccer’s popularity around the world!

No other event on the planet is capable of involving so many people in a similar way than a professional sporting event and especially that of soccer.According to Cardinal Ratzinger, “this tells us that some primeval human instinct is at play here” and raises the question as to the source of the spell that this games exerts.

Pope Benedict XVI will show his appreciation for this universal dimension of the sporting phenomena with its potential to peacefully unite diverse nations and races of the earth.

Sport as “Play”

The pessimist will respond to the question of why sport is a universal phenomenon by saying that it is the same as the case with the ancient Rome, where panem et circenses, (bread and the circus games), constituted “the only meaning in life for a decadent society, which does not know any higher aspiration” (Decimus Iunius Iuvenalis). But, even if we accept this explanation, we still would still remain with the question: “why is this game so fascinating that it remains equal with bread?” To answer this, we might look again to the past and see that the cry for bread and games was in reality the expression of “a longinge for the paradisal life – an escape from the wearisome enslavement of daily life.” In this context,the Cardinal reveals the profound sense of play as an activity that is totally free, without limits or constrictions, and both engages and fulfills all the energy of man. Consequently, play could be interpreted as a sort of effort to return to paradise: as an escape from the “wearisome enslavement of daily life” (aus dem versklavten Ernst des Alltags) for the free seriousness (freien Ernst) of something that should not be so and therefore it is beautiful. In this way, sport, in a certain sense, overcomes (überschreitet) daily life.

Besides this capacity to overcome ordinary life, play possesses – as we can see in children- another characteristic: that of being a school of life.Play symbolizes life itself and anticipates it in a way that is characterized by a free form manner.

Sport as a “School of Life”

According to this very original reflection of Cardinal Ratzinger, the fascination for soccer consists in the fact that it unites these two following aspects in a persuasive manner. First of all, it “compels man to exercise self-discipline,” so that he may gain control over himself, and through this control, self mastery. In turn, this self mastery leads to freedom. Soccer can also teach a disciplined cooperation with others (diszipliniertes Miteinander). In team play, one learns to insert their individuality into the service of the entire group. Sport unites people in a common goal: the success and failure of each one lies in the success and failure of everyone.

Sport can also teach fair play as the rules of the game, which all mutually obey, bind and unite the competitors together. The freedom of play- when play is according to the rules- becomes serious competition that is only resolved into the freedom of a finished game.

In watching a game, the spectator identifies himself with the game and the players. In this way, he feels himself a part of both the team play and the competition, participating in the player’s seriousness and in their freedom of action. The players become a symbol of his own life; and that works vice versa. The players know that the spectators are seeing themselves represented in them, being affirmed by them.

Threats to and Deviations to Sporting Activities

At the end of this interview, rich and dense in content, Cardinal Ratzinger discussed the temptations and dangers that threaten the world of sport. The goodness of the game can easily be spoiled by commercialism, which casts the grim pall of money over everything, and changes sport into an industry which can produce an unreal world of horrifying dimensions.

But this illusory world cannot exist when sport is based on positive values:as a training for life (Vorübung) and as a stepping over (Überschreitung) from our daily life in the direction of our lost Paradise. Both cases however require finding a discipline for freedom in order to train oneself to follow the rules of teamwork (Miteinander), of competition (Gegeneinander) and of self-discipline (Auskommen mit sich selbst).

After considering all of this, we can conclude that through sport something new about learning how to live can be gained. This is because sport makes some fundamentals of life visible: man does not live by bread alone. Yes, the material world is only the preliminary stage (Vorstufe) for the truly human,the world of freedom. But that freedom is based on rules, on the discipline of teamwork (Miteinander) and fair competition (Gegeneinander), independent of outward success or arbitrariness, and is thereby truly free. Sport as life…if we look at it more profoundly, the phenomenon of a football-crazy world can give us more than sheer entertainment.

Observations of Pope Benedict XVI Regarding Sport

We can now consider some observations that Pope Benedict XVI has made regarding soccer and sporting activity in a general way that have as their presupposition and foundation these reflections made thirty years earlier.

In addition to the numerous remarks about sport that the Holy Father has made in his greetings to pilgrims at the end of the Wednesday General Audiences and his Angelus messages, there are two speeches that he has delivered during two special audiences: one to the Austrian National Ski Team (October 6, 2007)(Benedict XVI, Insegnamenti, “Speech to the Austrian National Ski Team,” 2007) and the other to the participants of the World Swimming Championship (August 1, 2009) (Benedict XVI, L’Osservatore Romano, “ Speech to the participants of the World Swimming Championship,” 2009). As both speeches were addressed to the athletes themselves who were received by him, they offered the Holy Father the occasion to deal with the theme of sport more amply. To facilitate our analysis, I will subdivide his reflections into five points.

Virtues and Values Inherent to Sporting Activity

For consider the values inherent to sporting activity, the Holy Father’s speech to the Austrian ski team offers us an excellent program. Pope Benedict XVI observes that sports can help to foster basic virtues and values and offers an exemplary list: “perseverance, determination, spirit of sacrifice, internal and external discipline, attention to others, team work,solidarity, justice, courtesy, and the recognition of one’s own limits,and still others. These same virtues also come into play in a significant way in daily life and need to be continually exercised and practiced” (Benedict XVI, Insegnamenti, “Speech to the Austrian National Ski Team,” 2007; see also Insegnamenti, “Wednesday General Audience,” 2005; Insegnamenti, “Wednesday General Audience,” 2006; Insegnamenti, “Wednesday General Audience,” 2007; Insegnamenti, “Wednesday General Audience,” 2008; L’ Osservatore Romano, “Message with occasion of the Tour de France,” 2009).

While receiving the participants of the World Swimming Championship in August of 2009 in Rome, the Holy Father underlined again the potential values that are inherent to sporting efforts, this time enumerating a list from a complementary perspective:

“With your competitions you offer the world a fascinating spectacle of discipline and humanity, of artistic beauty and tenacious determination. You show what goals the vitality of youth can achieve when young people submit to the effort of a demanding training and are willing to accept numerous sacrifices and deprivations. All this is also an important lesson for life for your peers.… Sport, practiced with enthusiasm and an acute ethical sense, especially for youth become a training ground of healthy competition and physical improvement, a school of formation in the human and spiritual values,a privileged means for personal growth and contact with society&rdquo (Benedict XVI, L’ Osservatore Romano, “Speech to the participants of the World Swimming Championship,” 2009).

Athletes as “Role Models”

Speaking to these top level Austrian skiers, the Holy Father touched upon the fact that they are role models for the young people especially. “In fact, you, dear athletes, shoulder the responsibility –not less significant – of bearing witness to these attitudes and convictions and of incarnating them beyond your sporting activity into the fabric of the family, culture, and religion. In doing so, you will be of great help for others, especially the youth, who are immersed in rapidly developing society where there is a widespread loss of values and growing disorientation” (Benedict XVI, Insegnamenti, “Speech to the Austrian National Ski Team,” 2007).

And also in the above quoted speech to champion swimmers, he affirmed similarly: “Dear athletes, you are models for your peers, and your example can be crucial to them in building their future positively. So be champions in sports and in life!” (Benedict XVI, L’ Osservatore Romano, “ Speech to the participants of the World Swimming Championship,” 2009).

The Holy Father reminds these athletes that their “role as a champion” goes beyond the confines of their sport because their sporting activity becomes for many youth a model of a life of achievement and success. This brings with it a great responsibility because it can be a determining factor in one’s entire life project. In a time when exemplary personalities who the youth respect are lacking, the champion athlete indirectly becomes an “educator” as the young people look to them for guidance. Because of this, sporting ideals must permeate not only sport but life itself in order to be authentic and credible.

These considerations cause us to examine more closely an very important aspect for the Pontiff: the educational potential of sport and how it can contribute in confronting the growing “educational emergency” that is witnessed more in more in our time (Benedict XVI, L’ Osservatore Romano, “Letter to the Diocese of Rome,” 2009; see also L’ Osservatore Romano, “Address to the General Assembly of the Italian Bishops Conference,” 2008).

Sport as a Response to the Educational Emergency

In a Wednesday General Audience on January 9, 2008, the Holy Father greeted the directors and athletes of the level D Italian soccer league with thesewords: “May the game of soccer always be more of a means of teaching the values of honesty, solidarity and fraternity, especially among the younger generations” (Benedict XVI, Insegnamenti, “Greeting,Wednesday General Audience,” 2008).

I would like to recall another quote from the Holy Father which were directed to soccer students at a training club that forms part of the young scholastic sector of the Italian Soccer Federation (FIGC). At the end of the Sunday Angelus, Pope Benedict XVI made this appeal: “May sport be a gymnasium of true preparation for life” (Benedict XVI, Insegnamenti, “Greeting, Angelus,” 2005; see also Insegnamenti, “Greeting,” 2006).

On the occasion of the Pontifical Council for the Laity’s sport seminar (“Sport, education, faith: towards a new season for Catholic sport associations” 6-7 November 6-7, 2009), the Holy Father strongly accentuated in his message the educative value of sporting activity:“Sports have considerable educational potential in the context of youth and, for this reason, great importance not only in the use of leisure time but also in the formation of the person” (Benedict XVI, L’Osservatore Romano, “Message to Cardinal Stanislaw Rylko, President of the Pontifical Council for the Laity, on occasion of the International Seminar of Study,” 2009; see also L’Osservatore Romano, “Speech to the participants of the World Swimming Championship,” 2009; L’Osservatore Romano, “Address to civil and political authorities in Prague,” 2009).

In the actual educational emergency, provoked by a unilateral and exaggerated demand for personal freedom, sport can assume an important role as a means to educate many young people. Sport can demonstrate- by means of its rules and team effort- that there is an undeniable need for discipline and a shared responsibility.

In this regard, the Holy Father, in his letter to the diocese of Rome on the theme of education recalled that: “If no standard of behavior and rule of life is applied even in small daily matters, the character is not formed and the person will not be ready to face the trials that will come in the future.The educational relationship, however, is first of all the encounter of two kinds of freedom, and successful education means teaching the correct use of freedom” (Benedict XVI, L’Osservatore Romano, “Letter to the Diocese of Rome,” 2009).

Sport represents an appropriate field for finding the right balance between freedom and discipline, which is perhaps the most delicate point in the task of education today. Many young people consider sport as a positive phenomenon in their life and easily undergo the rigor and fatigue that it implies as well as its rules. Especially in the case of soccer, we see how team work groups together the freedom of each individual and the need of respecting the rules for the benefit of the common good.

As we have seen -in the context of this formative process- the Holy Father counts much upon sports men and women to be “credible witnesses” of its virtue and values. In this sense, speaking to the General Assembly of the Italian Bishop’s Conference (May 29, 2008), where the Holy Father made explicit reference to the parish recreational centers, he noted:“… precisely the current educational emergency increases the demand for an education that truly is such: therefore, concretely speaking,educators who know how to be credible witnesses of these realities and of these values upon which it is possible to build both one’s personal existence and a common and shared project of life” (Benedict XVI, L’Osservatore Romano, “Address to the General Assembly of the Italian Bishop’s Conference,” 2008).

The Unifying and Pacifying Capacity of Sport

A fourth aspect to consider is sport’s capacity to unite people of different countries and races in friendly competition as is often attested with particular eloquence in the occasion of the Olympics or the World Cup.

At the end of a General Audience on September 22, 2005, the Holy Fatherspoke these words to a delegation of UEFA and the Italian Soccer Federation present with a numerous group of children in attendance from sixteen countries:“Dear friends, … may today’s manifestation be an occasion for you to renew your efforts so that sport can contribute to building a society that is distinguished by reciprocal respect, fairness in behavior, and solidarity among all races and cultures” (Benedict XVI, Insegnamenti, “Greeting, Wednesday General Audience,”2005).

Once more, after praying the Sunday Angelus on February 12, 2006, a few days before the winter Olympics in Turin, the Pope expressed his desire that“this great sports competition be imbued with the Olympic values of fairness, joy and fraternal relations and in doing so, contribute to fostering peace among peoples” (Benedict XVI, Insegnamenti, “Angelus Greeting,” 2006; see also Insegnamenti, “Angelus Greeting to the Interamnia World Cup,” 2007; Insegnamenti, “Wednesday General Audience,” 2008; Insegnamenti ,“ Wednesday General Audience,” 2007).

Also in his greeting to the participants in the 29th edition of the Summer Olympics in Beijing, the Holy Father placed the accentuation on the pacifying dimension of sport: “… I am following with deep interest this great sports event – the most important and anticipated in the world – and I warmly hope that it will offer the international community an effective example of coexistence among people of the most different provenances, with respect for their common dignity. May sports once again be a pledge of brotherhood and peace among peoples!” (Benedict XVI, L’Osservatore Romano, “Angelus, greeting with occasion of the forthcoming Olympic Games in Beijing,” 2008).

These considerations of the Holy Father want to recall that an excessive nationalism and racism are contrary to the ideals of sport (“Olympic values”) as they destroy this unifying and pacifying capacity. Especially the Olympic Games and the other global sporting events can easily miss this opportunity and become the occasion, as has happened in the past, for a display of power and superiority of one nation’s political system over another’s. In these cases, sport is not an occasion for uniting, but is in opposition to the entire peoples as well as to the single individual. The Holy Father does not only ask this from “others”, but he also directs this appeal in a particular way to groups within the Church, especially Catholic sport associations. Benedict XVI asks them to be active in promoting a balanced appreciation of sporting activity in conformance with the sporting ideal and a Christian vision of the human person.

The Contribution of the Church and Catholic Athletes

The greatest asset the Church has to offer to the world of sport is her own insights regarding the overall phenomenon of sport that is enriched by a vision of the human person rooted in Christian anthropology and also in the light of the faith (Benedict XVI, L’Osservatore Romano, “Message to Cardinal,” 2006).

For the Pope, sport is not simply the exercise of one’s physical qualities but rather something that regards the entire person. Along these same lines, in his speech to the Austrian skiers already quoted above, he affirms:

“Body, spirit and soul form a single unity and each component must be in harmony with the other. You know how necessary this interior harmony is in order to reach sporting goals at the highest levels. Consequently, even the most demanding sports must be rooted in a holistic view of the human person, recognizing his profound dignity and favoring an overall development and full maturity of the person. Otherwise, if sport is only focused on mere material performance, it will fall short of realizing its necessary social dimension. In the end, sporting activity must help one to recognize their own talents and capacities, their very efforts and their own very life as gifts that come from God. For this reason, sport should always have God our Creator as its ultimate point of reference. It is in this sense that the Apostle makes reference to sports competition in order to recall man’s highest calling: “Do you not know that the runners in the stadium all run in the race, but only one wins the prize? Run so as to win. Every athlete exercises discipline in every way. They do it to win a perishable crown, but we an imperishable one”(1Cor. 9: 24-25) (Benedict XVI, “Speech to Austrian National Ski Team,” 2007).

Speaking to the participant of the swimming championship, the Holy Father included in his speech a reflection on the transcendent dimension of the human person, bringing out the loftier aspects of our creaturely status and concluding with what could almost be considered a prayer of thanksgiving to God:

“Watching these swimming championships and admiring the results achieved make it easy to understand the great potential with which God has endowed the human body and the interesting objectives of perfection it is able to achieve. One then thinks of the Psalmist’s wonder who in contemplating the universe, praises the glory of God and the greatness of man: “when I behold your heavens”, we read in Psalm 8, “the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars that you have set in place what is man that you are mindful of him, or the son of man that you care for him?” (vv. 3-4). Then, how can one fail to thank the Lord for having endowed the human body with such perfection; for having enriched it with a beauty and harmony that can be expressed in so many ways?” (Benedict XVI, L’Osservatore Romano, “Speech to the participants of the World Swimming Championship,” 2009).

With respect to the many time quoted educational emergency, the Holy Father has pointed out those task that belong to the Church, especially to her pastors and the educational institutions and sport associations. It is significant that Pope Benedict XVI, during a meeting with the clergy of Rome, regarding the theme of the parish recreational center, had this to say:

“Of course, an after-school center where only games were played and refreshments provided would be absolutely superfluous. The point of an after-school catechetical and recreation center must be cultural, human and Christian formation for a mature personality. … I would say that this is precisely the role of such a center, that one not only finds possibilities there for one’s leisure time but above all for an integral human formation that completes the personality. Therefore, of course, the priest as an educator must himself have received a good training and must fit into today’s culture, and be deeply cultured if he is to help young people to enter a culture inspired by faith. I would naturally add that in the end, the central point of orientation in every culture is God, God present in Christ” (Benedict XVI, L’Osservatore Romano, “Meeting with Clergy of Rome,” 2009).

Along this very same line of thinking, in his message to our recent seminar of study (Vatican, November 6-7, 2009), he underlined this point:

“Through sports, the ecclesial community contributes to the formation of youth, providing a suitable environment for their human and spiritual growth. In fact, when sports initiatives aim at the integral development of the person and are managed by qualified and competent personnel, they provide a useful opportunity for priests, religious and lay people to become true and proper educators and teachers of life for the young.

In our time when an urgent need to educate the new generations is evident it is therefore necessary for the Church to continue to support sports for youth, making the most of their positive aspects also at competitive levels such as their capacity for stimulating competitiveness, courage and tenacity in pursuing goals. However, it is necessary to avoid every trend that perverts the nature of sports by recourse to practices that can even damage the body, such as doping. As part of a coordinated, formative effort, Catholic directors, staff and workers must consider themselves expert guides for youth, helping each of them to develop their athletic potential without obscuring those human qualities and Christian virtues that make for a fully mature person” (Benedict XVI, L’ Osservatore Romano, “ Message to Cardinal Stanislaw Rylko, President of the Pontificial Council for the Laity, on occasion of the International Seminar of Study,” 2009).

While acknowledging that not all athletes share the same vision of the human person down to its last detail, the Church would like to offer her assistance in furthering a more profound and integral vision of the sporting phenomenon, in order to avoid the error of valuing this beautiful, but penultimate, reality as the ultimate end supreme activity of man. This service could help to reduce the temptation to use in appropriate ways («unfair play», corruption) or means(«doping») that contradict the very essence of the nature of sport.

Some might be surprised to find these words of the Holy Father regarding sport, as their first impression might be that of considering Pope Benedict XVI distant from the world of sport, especially if we consider his lack of participation in sport during his youth (Ratzinger, 1998).

However, as we have been able to see, already as the young Archbishop of Munich he dedicated himself to this theme with a philosophically profound reflection, pointing out the potentiality of sport for the integral development of the person on the individual level and its capacities on the national and global levels.

Cardinal Ratzinger – and also as Pope Benedict XVI – inserting sporting activity into a broader anthropological context, sought to bring these debate out of a dead end path of pure entertainment or sterile self-autonomy. I myself was surprised to find that the Holy Father, in the first two and a half years of his pontificate (2005-2008) touched upon the theme of sport in various ways no less than fifty occasions (Insegnamenti di Benedict XVI, 2005-2008).

Nor is it purely a coincidence that it is during the Pontificate of Benedict XVI, that a delegation of the Holy See participates in an Olympic Congress-that of Copenhagen last October 3-5, 2009, with a reflection on the theme of «Olympic values». For, as we recalled elsewhere, the Servant of God, John Paul II in the beginning of the year 2004, instituted the section “Church and sport” to insure a more direct and systematic attention to the vast world of sport on the part of the Holy See. And as we have seen from the above reflections, during the Pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI, the interest and concern of the Universal Church to the vast world of sport continues as it seeks to dialogue with the renowned sports institutions at the international level while fostering a renewal of pastoral work in and through sports at the level.

References

Benedetta, T. (2009). Interview found at http://freeforumzone.leonardo.it/discussione.aspx?idd=354533.

Benedict XVI (2005, September 21). Greeting, Wednesday General Audience. Insegnamenti I, 567.

Benedict XVI (2005, October 5). Wednesday General Audience. Insegnamenti , 636.

Benedict XVI (2005, December 18). Greeting, Angelus. Insegnamenti I, 567-1004.

Benedict XVI (2006). Greeting to representatives of the Venarotta Calcio Association. Insegnamenti II, 624.

Benedict XVI (2006, January 25). Greeting. Insegnamenti I, 105.

Benedict XVI (2006, February 8). Message to Cardinal. L’Osservatore Romano, 2.

Benedict XVI (2006, February 12). Angelus Greeting. Insegnamenti II, 180.

Benedict XVI (2007). Greeting to participants in the third “Festadello sportive.” Insegnamenti III, 426.

Benedict XVI (2007, July 8). Angelus Greeting of the Interamnia World Cup. Insegnamenti III, 32.

Benedict XVI, (2007, August 1). Wednesday General Audience. L’Osservatore Romano, 4.

Benedict XVI (2007, October 6). Speech to the Austrian National Ski Team. Insegnamenti III.

Benedict XVI (2008, January 8). Wednesday General Audience. Insegnamenti IV, 48.

Benedict XVI (2008, January 21). Letter to the Diocese of Rome. L’Osservatore Romano, 10-11.

Benedict XVI (2008, April 9). Wednesday General Audience greeting European Taekwondo. Insegnamenti IV, 546.

Benedict XVI (2008, May 7). Wednesday General Audience. Insegnamenti IV,732-734.

Benedict XVI (2008, June 4). Address to the General Assembly of the Italian Bishops Conference. L’Osservatore Romano, 5.

Benedict XVI (2008, August 6). Angelus, greeting with occasion of the forthcoming Olympic Games in Beijing. L’Osservatore Romano, 1.

Benedict XVI (2009, March 11). Meeting with Clergy of Rome. L’Osservatore Romano, 4.

Benedict XVI (2009, July 22). Message with occasion of the Tour de France. L’Osservatore Romano, 1.

Benedict XVI (2009, August 5). Speech to the participants of the World Swimming Championship. L’Osservatore Romano, 12.

Benedict XVI (2009, September 18-29). Address to civil and political authorities in Prague. L’Osservatore Romano, 5.

Benedict XVI (2009, November 18). Message to Cardinal Stanislaw Rylko, President of the Pontifical Council for the Laity, on occasion of the International Seminar of Study. L’ Osservatore Romano, 5.

Benedikt XVI and Ratzinger, J. (2005). Gottes Glanz in unserer Zeit. Meditationen zum Kirchenjahr. Herder Press, 188-190.

Decimus Iunius Iuvenalis (cir. 55-127). Satire (10, 81).

Insegnamenti di Benedict XVI (2005-2008).

Mitarbeiter der Wahrheit, Gedanken für jeden Tag (1992). Naumann Press, 266.

Ordinariats-Korrespondenz, 1978. Archdiocese of Munich-Freising Bulletin (ok 03-15/78).

Pfister, P. (2006). Joseph Ratzinger und das Erzbistum München und Freising, Dokumente und Bilder aus kirchlichen Archiven, Beiträgen und Erinnerungen, in the collection: Schriften des Archivs des Erzbistum München und Freising, vol. 10, Schnell & Steiner, Regensburg, 313 s.

Ratzinger, J. (1992). Co-Workers of the Truth: Meditations for everyday of the year. Ignatius Press, San Francisco 1992, 262-263.

Ratzinger, J. (1998). Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977. Ignatius Press, 25-26.

Ratzinger, J. K. (1985). Suchen, was droben ist. Meditationen das Jahrhindurch. Herder Press, 107-111.

Ratzinger, J. and Benedikt XVI, P. (2009). Das Werk: Bibliographisches Hilfsmittel zur Erschließung des literarisch-theologischen Werkes von Joseph Ratzinger bis zur Papstwahl. Sankt Ulrich Press, 191.

U.S. Sports Academy2016-04-01T09:10:26-05:00February 28th, 2013|Contemporary Sports Issues, Sports Exercise Science, Sports Management|Comments Off

The Impact of Service Quality of Public Sports Facilities on Citizens’ Satisfaction, Image, and Word-of-mouth Intention

Hee-Kwan Eun, Ph.D., and Jong-Ho Lee, Ph.D.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to find the impact of the service quality of public sports facilities on citizen’s satisfaction, image, and word-of-mouth intention. To accomplish the purpose of this study, 354 citizens using a public skating rink were surveyed by means of the revised questionnaires from the prior studies (Hur, 1997; Jang & Bae, 2003; Kang et al., 2002; Lee & Shin, 2004). The content validity and reliability of the questionnaire were determined by conducting a pilot study. The reliability coefficient for the questionnaire was found to be α=.670-.786. The questionnaire utilizing a five-point Likert scale was employed to measure the degree of satisfaction, image, and word-of-mouth intention. The statistical methods in this study included frequency analysis, factors analysis, t-test, one-way ANOVA, and multiple regression analysis. For all the analyses, statistical significance was set at an alpha level of .05. The major findings obtained from this study were as follows: First, it was found that there was a significant difference in the perception of service quality of public sports facilities according to demographic characteristics, such as gender, marital status, educational level, age, occupation, and household income. Second, the operating service, event and program service and safety service had significant effects on citizen satisfaction. Third, the operating service, event and program service, safety service and use service had significant effects on their image. Finally, the results of this study also indicated that the operating service and safety service had significant effects on their word-of-mouth intention.

(more…)

U.S. Sports Academy2017-11-02T13:56:39-05:00February 7th, 2013|Contemporary Sports Issues, Sports Coaching, Sports Management|Comments Off

Evidence for a Curvilinear Relationship between Burnout and Years of Coaching Experience

Shelley H. Bradford, Steve F. Pugh, Robert J. Heitman, John E. Kovaleski, and Christopher M. Keshock. University of South Alabama, Mobile, Alabama.

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to determine if the relationship between burnout, as measured by the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), and years of coaching experience was curvilinear for male high school coaches. Hierarchical regression found a significant quadratic component for the MBI subscales of Emotional Exhaustion (p<.05) and Depersonalization (p<.05). No significant linear or quadratic relationships were found for the Personal Accomplishment subscale. These results suggest that two categories of burnout as measured by the MBI (Emotional Exhaustion and Depersonalization) do not increase in a linear fashion with coaching experience rather a curvilinear shape was found. Male high school coaches with fewer years of experience suffered more emotional exhaustion and depersonalization than those with more years of experience.

INTRODUCTION

Burnout has been studied across a variety of occupations including sport coaching. A commonly used operational definition of the construct of burnout is supplied by Maslach and colleagues (5)(11)(12)(13). They have identified the major components of burnout as emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal accomplishment. Further, their work has provided not only a more fully developed conceptual framework of burnout, but a psychometrically sound instrument for the measurement of burnout, the Maslach Burnout Inventory(MBI).

Rationale

In order to avoid burnout in sport coaches it is important to determine which factors are associated with this undesirable phenomenon. Investigator shave studied numerous variables (e.g. gender, age, type sport, marital status, etc.) in order to determine if an association with burnout exists. Onedemographic variable which has been studied is years of coaching experience. Results of studies investigating the relationship between years of coaching and burnout have been equivocal. Investigations have found either no association or a significant, but low negative association between burnout and experience (1)(2)(8)(15). Several studies have found less experienced coaches, both male and female, to have higher perceived burnout than coaches with more experience (1)(4)(8)(10). Drake and Herbert (3) found, in a qualitative study of burnout among collegiate coaches, that the level of stress and burnout were high during early years of coaching, then, decreased with experience. These findings parallel those of Kelley and Gill (8) who found higher levels of burnout in less experienced collegiate coaches. To date, studies have only tested for linear associations between coaching experience and burnout. It is conceivable that experience is related to burnout in a curvilinear way. It may be that in the early stages of coaching burnout is high, but decreases or levels off with experience influencing the linear association. A larger amount of variation might be accounted for in the quadratic component of the regression of burnout on years of coaching experience. This study investigated the relationship of years of coaching experience and burnout, as measured by the three MBI subscales, and whether this relationship is curvilinear.

METHODS

Participants

The sample consisted of 205 male head varsity high school coaches from two states in the Southeastern United States who voluntarily completed the subscales and demographic information. The mean age of the participants was 42.9±9.76 with a range of 23 to 68 years. The number of years as a head varsity high school coach ranged from 1 to 37 years with a mean of 10.92±8.52 years. Each respondent was informed of the purpose and requirements of the study according to institutional guidelines and implied consent by completing the survey.

Instrumentation

The MBI Form Ed (14) developed for educators was used to measure burnout. The MBI is the most widely used instrument in the study of burnout for serving professions (12, 13). The MBI uses a liker t-type scale to measure the frequency of experienced feelings on the subscales of Emotional Exhaustion, Depersonalization, and Personal Accomplishment. Scores range from 0 (never) to 6 (everyday). The 9-item Emotional Exhaustion (EE) scale measures a person’s feeling of being emotionally exhausted by the work of their profession. The Depersonalization (DP) scale is a 5-item scale measuring the frequency of feelings of uncaring and impersonal attitudes toward those being served. The Personal Accomplishment scale (PA) is an 8-item scale describing feelings of accomplishment and satisfaction with ones job. In contrast to the EE and DP subscales, lower scores on the PA subscale correspond to higher degrees of burnout. The scores on each subscale are considered separately and are not combined into a single aggregate score. Validity and reliability of the instrument have been documented (12)(13). Permission to use the instrument was obtained from the publisher, Consulting Psychologist Press.

Statistical Analysis

The IBM PASW statistical Package (Version 18.0) was used for analyses. Linear and quadratic relations between Years of Experience and the three MBI subscales were each tested separately. Years of Experience scores were firs tmean centered and then squared to create the quadratic term. Using hierarchical regressions, the three MBI subscale scores were separately regressed onto the linear centered Years of Experience in step 1, in step 2 the quadratic centered Years of Experience was sequentially added (16). Alpha for all analyses was setat p<.05. Means and Standard Deviations are in Table 1.

Table 1

Means and Standard Deviations for the three MBI subscales

Subscale	M	(SD)
Emotional Exhaustion	21.55	11.94
Depersonalization	7.59	6.01
Personal Accomplishment	37.31	6.96

RESULTS

Sequential hierarchical regression examined whether the quadratic component of the relation between Years of Experience and Burnout explains more variance over and above the linear effect as measured by significance of R square change (7). For the EE subscale, when Years of Experience was regressed onto the EE subscale during step 1, there was a significant amount of variance explained, F(1,203)=7.266, p=.007, adjusted R2=.024. However,as indicated by the R2, only 2.4% of the variance in Emotional Exhaustion was explained by Years of Experience. When the Quadratic component for Years of Experience was added into the equation in step 2, there was a significant increase in the variance explained by the regression, R2change=.014, F change= F(1,203)=3.776, p=.053 and the linear Years of Experience was no longer significant, B=.190,t=.984, p=.326, with a significant quadratic component,B=-.374, t=-1.943, p=.053. The positive coefficient for the linear effect and negative coefficient for the quadratic effect suggests a gradually flattening convex shape of the curve (7). For the DP, when Years of Experience was regressed onto the DP subscale in step 1 there was significance, F(1,203)=7.858, p=.005, adjusted R2=.026 explaining 2.6% of the variance. When the quadratic component for Years of Experience was entered during step 2, there was a significant increase in the variance explained, R2 change=.018, F change=F(1.203)=4.795, p=.029 and, as with EE, the linear effect of Years of Experience from step 1 was no longer significantB=.227, t=1.18, p=.238 while the quadratic component entered on step 2 was significant, B=-.421, t=-2.190,p=.029. These results also suggest a convex curvilinear function. For PA, no significant regression coefficients were found for the linear effect entered on step 1, F(1,203)=1.031, p=.311 or the quadratic component entered on step 2, F change=F(1,203)=.202, p=.654. This result infers no relationship between feelings of Personal accomplishment,as measured by the MBI, and how many years someone has been coaching.

DISCUSSION

Coaching is considered by many to be a stressful occupation. Burnout is a result of constant stressors over prolonged periods of time (9). In order to avoid burnout, it is necessary to identify the stressors that most influence the phenomenon. Once identified, appropriate measures can be taken in order to alleviate the problem. One demographic variable that has been studied is the relationship between the years someone has been coaching and the degree of burnout. Results of studies that have used coaching experience as a variable to explain burnout have found conflicting results. We postulate that one of the reasons for contradictory findings is the possibility of a curvilinear relationship between burnout and years of coaching experience. Our results partially support the hypothesis that the relationship between burnout, as measured by the three MBI scales, and coaching experience is curvilinear. Significant quadratic components were found for Emotional Exhaustion, and Depersonalization, but no significant findings were found for Personal Accomplishment. The significant findings do support the notion put forth by several authors (4)(8)(10) that burnout is more prevalent in less experienced coaches compared to more experienced coaches at least as far as Emotional Exhaustion and Depersonalization are concerned. Our findings are also consistent with the findings of Caccese and Mayerberg (1) and Kelly and Gill(8) who found that the pattern of means across age and experience levels does not clearly suggest a linear increase in burnout as a function of time. However, one limitation of this study is that posed by Weinberg and Gould (17). It may be that coaches who experienced high levels of stress are no longer coaching with only those who possess adequate coping skills remaining in the profession and available for investigation. Future investigations may want to include former coaches who are still teaching but left the coaching profession.

Conclusion

These results suggest that two categories of burnout as measured by the Maslach Burnout Inventory (Emotional Exhaustion and Depersonalization) do not increase in a linear fashion with experience. After early increases in Emotional Exhaustion and Depersonalization scores, a point is reached where the scores tend to decrease or level off as Years of Experience continues to increase. No association was found for Personal Accomplishment. These results are interpreted to mean less experienced high school coaches have more emotional exhaustion and depersonalization than more experienced coaches.

Application in Sport

The results underline a significant curvilinear function between years of experience and level of burnout experienced by male high school varsity coaches. High school administrative personnel (e.g. principals, athletic directors, superintendents) may consider implementing mentoring programs for inexperienced coaches that address topics such as job responsibilities, administrative tasks (e.g. fundraising, scheduling, contest contracts, etc.)and stress management. Research on burnout in coaching has identified three major areas of stressors. One, demographic variables (e.g., gender, marital status, age, etc.), two, support variables (e.g., administrative support, work overload, role clarification, etc.) and three, personal variables (e.g.,leadership styles, trait anxiety, etc.) (9)(16). Preventative measures that address coping with these types of stressors may help reduce the level of burnout experienced by male varsity high school coaches. Burnout has a number of consequences that negatively influence not only the coach, but the athletes also. Future studies may want to investigate the influence of variables such as gender, coaching status, and personality traits on this curvilinear function.

References

1. Caccese, T.M., & Mayerberg, C.K. (1984). Gender differences in perceived burnout of college coaches. Journal of Sport Psychology, 6,279-288.

2. Dale, J., & Weinberg, R.S. (1990). Burnout in sport: A review and critique. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 2, 67-83.

3. Drake, D., & Herbert, E.P. (2002). Perceptions of occupational stress and strategies for avoiding burnout: Case studies of two female teacher-coaches. The Physical Educator, 59(4), 170-176.

4. Goodger, K., Gorely, T., Lavallee, D., & Harwood, C. (2007). Burnout in sport: A systematic review. The Sport Psychologist, 9(2), 127-151.

5. Jackson, S.E., Scwab, R.L., & Schuler, R.S. (1986). Toward an understanding of the burnout phenomenon. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 630-640.

6. Karabatsos, G., Malousaris, G., & Apostolidis, N. (2006). Evaluation and comparison of burnout levels in basketball, volleyball, and track and field coaches. Studies in Physical Culture and Tourism, 13(1), 79-83.

7. Keith, T. (2006). Multiple regression and beyond. New York, NY:Pearson.

8. Kelley, B.C., & Gill, D.L. (1993). An examination of personal/situational variables, stress appraisal, and burnout in collegiate teacher-coaches. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 64(1),94-102.

9. Kelley, B.C. (1994). A model of stress and burnout in collegiate coaches:Effects of gender and time of season. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 65(1), 48-58.

10. Koustelios, A. (2010). Burnout among football coaches in Greece.Biology of Exercise, 6(1), 5-12.

11. Maslach, C. (1976). Burned- out, Human Behavior, 5, 16-22.

12. Maslach, C., & Jackson, S.E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 2, 99-83.

13. Maslach, C., & Jackson, S.E. (1986). Maslach Burnout Inventory:Manual: Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.

14. Schwab, R. (1986). Burnout in education. In C. Maslach, & S.E.Jackson (Eds.), Maslach Burnout Inventory: Manual (pp18-22). PaloAlto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.

15. Taylor, A.H. , Daniel, J.V., Leith, L., & Burke, R.J. (1990).Perceived stress, psychological burnout and paths to turnover intentions among sport coaches. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 2, 84-97.

16. Taylor, J. (1992). Coaches are people too: An applied model of stress management for sport coaches. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 4,27-50.

17. Weinburg, R.S., & Gould, D. (2007). Foundations of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 4th ed., Human Kinetics: Champaign, IL. p503.

U.S. Sports Academy2013-11-22T22:39:45-06:00November 29th, 2012|Contemporary Sports Issues, Sports Coaching, Sports Management|Comments Off

College Choice Factors for Division I Athletes at an Urban University

Mark Vermillion, Wichita State University, and Gerrett Spears, Drake University

ABSTRACT

Purpose: Recently there has been much research attention focused on the college and university choice factors of potential student-athletes. Kankey and Quarterman (2007) developed a questionnaire, which was tested on Division I softball players, and advocated for more research utilizing different athlete populations to further analyze college and university choice factors among student athletes. As a result, the purpose of this research is to apply Kankey and Quarterman’s (2007) questionnaire to one athletic department with student athlete respondents from all sports funded by a Division I athletic department in order to ascertain: What factors are important to these Division I athletes when choosing to attend their present school? Methods: Division I student athletes were surveyed regarding the importance of certain factors influencing their decisions to attend this particular urban-serving institution. Online surveys were solicited through sport programs for volunteers. Student athletes took the online survey, which was used to develop an electronic database for analysis. Surveys with missing or skipped information were discarded leaving a sample of 101 respondents (n=101). Results: Statistical analyses indicate the most important choice factor to be the coaching staff. Other important—and highly rated factors—include personal relationships, financially based reasons, and academics/ career development. The least important factors included media related issues, technology outlets, and past coaches. Conclusion: Hossler and Gallagher’s (1987) student choice model is integrated with Symbolic Interactionism in order to understand results. It appears that a variety of factors are important to student athletes, which illustrates the multifaceted identities of student athletes. Applications in Sport: Collegiate sport practitioners and/or coaches working with constrained student development programming and/or recruiting budgets are better able to streamline these processes with a better understanding of student athlete choice factors. Knowing which factors to emphasize during the choice stage of choosing a college/university will better assist urban-serving universities during program development or recruiting.

INTRODUCTION

A sizable proportion of colleges and universities within the United States support athletic opportunities for their respective student bodies (Kankey& Quarterman, 2007). One common notion is those athletic programs supported by colleges/universities are integral to the overall college experience for potential and/or current students. Indeed, Coakley (2007) articulated the common perception that student athletes positively impact universities because sport programs increase student enrollment and revenue generating opportunities. Another potential expense to colleges or universities is the process of bringing those student athletes to campus, which can be a costly venture. Urban serving institutions of higher education tend to have constrained financial resources, which mirror the social inequities of urban public schools (Jordan, 2007). Athletic departments within these institution scan benefit greatly from understanding how to efficiently recruit potential student athletes. Finally, “conducting research regarding college or university choice factors, especially when organized within a social framework,helps both practitioners and academics in understanding the identities of student-athletes by illustrating what is important to them during the recruiting process” (Vermillion, 2010, p. 1). Indeed, previous research identified the need for examining how student athletes view their identities,academic careers, and the factors influencing them to attend specific institutions of higher education. (For example, see Letawsky, Schneider,Pedersen, & Palmer, 2003; Kankey & Quarterman, 2007; Vermillion,2010).

This research focuses exclusively on Division I student athletes in an urban-serving institution and attempts to extend Kankey and Quarterman’s(2007) findings regarding factors influencing the university choice of NCAA Division I softball players by utilizing their questionnaire for student athletes of all sports. As a result, the purpose of this project is to readily identify what college or university factors influence Division I student athletes to attend their present urban-serving schools. To accurately ground this project within the previous literature, a brief background discussion of factors influencing the college or university choice of the general student body, student athletes, and sport specific student athletes is summarized.Vermillion (2010) noted the usefulness of amalgamating social theory with other education theories in order to develop a holistic, interdisciplinary framework for discussing college choice factors with student athletes. As a result,Hossler and Gallaher’s (1987) model, and Symbolic Interactionism (Blumer,1969) are combined in order to explain or describe not only the data collected,but also the results and recommendations.

Background

There has been a relatively constant stream of college and university choice factors research for the last 50 years (for example, see Astin, 1965, Gorman,1976, Kealey & Rockel, 1987, Lourman & Garman, 1995, and Hu &Hossler, 2000). Summarizing this research, several key college or university choice factors—regarding the general student body—have been identified. These key factors include academic reputation of the institution,friendship influences, proximity to family, financial aid availability, the location of the institution, and program availability. Kankey and Quarterman(2007) noted the increase of research being conducted regarding college or university choice factors as related to student athletes. The emerging line of scholarly inquiry includes, but is not limited to, research regardingwomen’s athletics (Nicodemus, 1990), male athletes in general (Fielitz,2001), male, sport-specific athletes (Ulferts, 1992; Kraft & Dickerson,1996), freshmen male athletes (Fortier, 1986), and Division III male athletes and non-athletes (Giese, 1986). Common conclusions from the aforementioned studies and other research indicates the head coach, opportunity for participation, various academic factors and amount of available scholarships are important factors influencing student athletes. However, Letawsky,Schneider, Pedersen, and Palmer (2003) noted while athletic -based factors are important to student athletes’ decisions to attend colleges or universities, non-athletic factors also contribute to the decision to attend apresent college or university. To our knowledge, there has been little to no exploration of college choice factors of student athletes in one athletic department with respondent representation of all athletic programs.Additionally, there has been very little research done examining urban-serving institutions and their respective athletic departments. In order to adequately understand college choice factors and urban serving schools’ athletics, a theoretical framework is needed to guide not only research questions, but also interpretation of the descriptive statistical results.

Conceptual Framework

The original conceptual framework utilized by Kankey and Quarterman (2007)to organize and represent their data and findings was Hossler and Gallaher’s (1987) model. Hossler and Gallaher’s model has also been adapted to better understand this research. Specifically, it is a three-stagemodel that identifies and describes the college selection process of individuals and is composed of three stages: predisposition, search, and choice stages. The predisposition stage is the time when students decide if they want to continue into higher education by pursuing colleges or universities, while the search stage encompasses the individual’s evaluations of college or universities, which includes large amounts of interaction. Finally, the choice stage focuses on the submission of application to a targeted pool of colleges or universities.Regarding sport, Kankey and Quarterman (2007) focused primarily on the last stage within Hossler and Gallagher’s (1987) model, which is when the student athlete develops serious intentions about a select few colleges or universities. The student athlete engages in a cost-benefit analysis in order to determine the positives and negatives of each college or university and attempts to make a sound decision. For student athletes, this stage could encompass not only being recruited, but also critically examining the factors that are the most pertinent to their specific situation and taking official visits. Focusing on the “choice stage” is also salient for this project, which addresses college athletes attending an urban serving institution. Understanding why some student athletes choose to attend one college or university over another competitor is important for understanding student athletes’ educational, athletic, and social motivations to attend institutions of higher education.

Symbolic Interactionism

Vermillion (2010) noted Symbolic Interactionism (SI)—a sociological theory focusing on identity, social interaction, and symbolinterpretation—is easily applied to many areas within the institution of sport. Using a micro level of analysis, SI provides a description or explanation of the constructed reality of spectators, athletes, or coaches(Coakley, 2007). Additionally, Cunningham (2007) noted SI understands how people give meaning to their participation or consumption of daily activities.Recently, SI has been used by a variety of scholars to examine a wide variety of sport-based social dynamics, including student athlete choice factors. Some of this research includes, but is not limited to: understanding sport subcultures and the resulting socialization process of rugby players and rock climbers (Donnelly & Young, 1999); examining the role of athletics in gay or lesbian athletes’ lives (Anderson, 2005); explaining the disproportionate lack of women in sport organization leadership positions(Sartore & Cunningham, 2007); understanding how students interpret and consume indigenous sport imagery (Vermillion, Friedrich, & Holtz, 2010); or examining the college choice factors important for influencing community college softball players to attend their current school (Vermillion, 2010).

SI is composed of three basic assumptions. Hughes and Kroehler (2005)summarize Blumer (1969) and Fine (1993) and stated the following theory tenets:1) we interact with things in our social environment based upon shared meanings, 2) these meanings are not inherent, but rather, are social constructions, and 3) shared meanings are in a perpetual state of change and evolution. Interactions and communication within a specific social environment adheres to the aforementioned assumptions and helps to form an individual’s “constructed reality,” which is an individual’s interpretation of the social world and dynamics around them(Eitzen & Sage, 2009). When combined with Hossler and Gallagher’s(1987) choice model, we are better able to understand the social psychological processes interacting within the decision to attend or not attend a specific urban -serving institution.

Explaining or describing choice factors important to athletes in urban-serving institutions is important by highlighting the social psychological processes associated with the decision to attend a specific institution of higher education. SI’s focus on the “meaning”athletes give to their participation is useful for examining the power the“athlete role” has on not only the identity of the student athlete,but also the decisions that student athlete makes. Stryker (1980) addressed oneof SI’s limitations—lack of a focus on social structure (Ritzer,2000)—by combining SI with role theory. This adapted version of SI identifies the importance of social roles within the lives of individuals,which are forms of social structure. Student athletes, for example, have multiple roles that they “play” throughout the day, including being a student, university representative, son/daughter, sibling, friend, and athlete. Examining the social-psychological process of how impactful these roles are upon the individual in question provides practitioners insight into the programs, services, or infrastructures that should be emphasized during the costly process of student athlete recruitment. As previously noted urban-serving, institutions tend to suffer from constrained fiscal environments, which are similar to those constraints faced by urban public schools (Jordan, 2007). SI’s usefulness lies in the fact it understands individuals are decision-makers, and provides a structured, analytical way for highlighting how the decisions student athletes make impact not only their social environments (Hughes & Kroehler, 2005), but also the colleges oruniversities they attend (Vermillion, 2010).

Significance

This research project is significant in a number of ways. First, there is very little research done examining the choice factors of: 1) all sports (and resulting athletes) in one athletic department, and 2) athletes from an urban-serving institution. The purpose of this research is to address these gaps in the previous literature. Secondly, the research would also be useful to college or university athletic programs. Specifically, the research will help to streamline the recruiting process for many athletic departments—ofsimilar composition—by addressing the most important choice factors for student athletes in these types of schools. As a result, a better and more efficient allocation of recruiting funds may be developed in order to maximize shrinking recruiting budgets. Moreover, this research is particularly timely as athletic departments attempt to build relationships with other university,academic-based programs. If certain academic programs are identified as particularly salient to potential student athletes, then athletic department personnel can work with other academic administrators in order to: 1) bridge the increasing division and distance between academic programs/the campus community and athletic departments, and 2) demonstrate a commitment to a holistic student athlete experience, which includes the social, athletic, and professional/academic development of the student athlete.

Finally, urban-serving institutions, historically, are comprised of student populations that differ from institutions not classified as such. Urban-serving school districts have higher rates of poverty, racial/ethnic diversity, and equalized access to strong community and educational infrastructures (Howey,2008). As Jordan (2007) noted, urban-serving colleges or universities mirror many of the same inequality patterns found in urban, public school districts.As a result, more research is needed in order to understand collegiate athletics within an urban- embedded university context. It can be hypothesized that universities within urban settings—or designated as urban-serving institutions—have athletic departments that must recognize the relatively unique nature of these campus communities, which may manifest itself in unique athletic facilities, programs, and/or recruiting efforts and strategies.

Research Questions

The research question guiding this research was influenced by previous sport-based research centering on college or university choice factors for student athletes. Based upon Hossler and Gallagher’s (1987) model, are cognition of the uniqueness of urban-serving institutions of higher education, and utilized in conjunction with SI’s theoretical influence,the following research questions is posed: Which college and university choice factors are the most influential for having Division I athletes attend their present urban serving institution? That is, what factors are the most important to Division I student athletes when deciding to attend their present school?

METHODOLOGY

Participants

Respondents for the study were selected from the student athlete population of a large, state university located in the southern high plains of the United States. The university is designated as an urban-serving university and is embedded in an urban environment within a predominantly rural state. It is important to note the university is designated as a Division I (formerly known as Division I AAA) by the NCAA. This is the label given to Division I athletic departments that do not fund or field football teams. As a result, the potential survey population is slightly smaller as compared to FBS (FootballBowl Subdivision) or FCS (Football Championship Series) athletic departments,formerly known as Division I A and Division I AA respectively. Surveys we readministered as online surveys and once surveys were completed, responses were automatically entered into a spreadsheet, which was imported into SPSS 17.0 in order to develop an electronic database. Surveys with missing (skipped)questions or ambiguous answers were discarded and not included in the database.While not all student athletes responded fully, there was representation of all athletic programs administered by the athletic department at the time of data collection. After data collection a total of 101 usable surveys were included in the analysis (n=101).

In order to determine the demographics of the respondents, basic questions were asked to determine gender, academic status (freshman, sophomore, junior,and senior), country of origin, race or ethnicity and sport they participated in. The resulting sample included more females than males (65% vs. 35%) and was composed of freshmen (23.2%), sophomores (30.3%), juniors (29.3%), and seniors(17.2%). The majority of respondents listed white as their race/ ethnicity(64.6%) or African-American/Black (30.2%) and their country of origin as the United State (84.5%). Finally, table 1 illustrates the percent of respondents based upon sport.

Table 1

Percent of respondents by sport categories (n=101).

Sport	Percent (%)	N
Baseball	9.1	9
Softball	6.1	6
Women’s Basketball	10.1	10
Men’s Basketball	5.1	5
Volleyball	10.1	10
Men’s track	11.1	11
Women’s track	24.2	24
Men’s golf	4	4
Women’s golf	3	3
Women’s tennis	4	4
Men’s tennis	4	4
Cross Country	9.1	9

Measure

The data collection survey consisted of the aforementioned five demographic questions and college choice factors used by Kankey and Quarterman (2007). Permission was obtained by the primary researcher to use the Kankey and Quarterman factor list for additional research and was adapted to this research focusing on Division I student athletes. The possible answer choices regarding the importance of the college choice factors included “extremely important,” “very important,” “moderately important,” “slightly important,” and“unimportant,” which were numerically coded with “extremely important” rating a five (5) while “unimportant” was rated as one (1). As a result, the higher the rating, the more important the college choice factor was to the student athlete.

Procedure

Student athletes were asked by their coaches or athletic program administrators to complete the online survey. Additional follow-up contacts were made to specific programs to ensure that there was student athlete representation from all sponsored sports in the athletic department. Informed consent was done electronically with the disclaimer attached to the electronic version of the survey. Student athlete participation was not mandatory, but it was encouraged. All results are not simply confidential, but also anonymous because a detailed respondent record cannot be tracked or charted in the current electronic database. Surveys were taken by student athletes while coaches and staff were not present to avoid any influence or tainting of respondent self-reports. The gathered statistical information was shared with the athletic department in addition to being used for this research. Electronic survey information, which was saved in spreadsheet format, was imported into SPSS 17.0 for data analysis.

RESULTS

In keeping with Kankey and Quarterman (2007) a descriptive analysis is used to initially describe and identify the college choice factors associated with Division I athletes attending urban-serving institutions. Regarding the research question (what factors are the most important to Division I student athletes when deciding to attend their present school?), initial univariate responses indicate that 87% of the factors presented in this research were at or above the midpoint of the scale (M= 3.00). In addition, almost half of the factors (15 out of 32, or almost 47%) had means over 4.00 with over 70% of respondents rating these factors as ‘extremely’ or ‘very important’ to their choice to attend this urban-serving university. The seven most highly rated factors, which had mean scale scores at or above 4.25,included coaching staff (M=4.68, SD=0.66); amount of financial aid or scholarship offered (M=4.47, SD=078); support services offered to studentathletes (e.g. study hall, tutors, etc…)(M=4.44, SD= 0.74); availability of resources (money, equipment, etc…)(M=4.31, SD=0.75); opportunity to win conference or national championship (M=4.27, SD=0.83); availability of major (M= 4.25, SD=0.94); and social atmosphere of team (M=4.25, SD= 0.88). See table 2.

The means of only three factors were rated below the scale midpoint. These factors included amount of media coverage (M=2.96, SD=1.94); high school coach(M=2.87, SD= 1.44); and team’s website, Facebook, Twitter (M=2.66, SD=1.21). Only about 30% of the respondents rated these three factors as‘extremely’ or ‘very important’ in their decision to attend this particular urban-serving institution and participate in athletics.See table 2.

Table 2

Mean, Standard Deviation, and Percent (%) of Factor Choices Influencing Division I Student Athletes to attend their Urban-serving Institution(n=101).

Factor	Mean	SD	% rated extremely or very important
Coaching staff	4.68	0.66	94%
Amt of financial aid/scholarship offered	4.47	0.78	86.2%
Support services offered to student athletes (e.g. study hall, tutors, etc…)	4.44	0.74	89.1%
Availability of resources (e.g. money, equipment, etc…)	4.31	0.75	85.1%
Opportunity to win conference or national championship	4.27	0.83	83.2%
Availability of anticipated major	4.25	0.94	84.2%
Social atmosphere of team	4.25	0.88	81.2%
Athletic facilities	4.21	0.83	83.2%
Career opportunities after graduation	4.20	0.95	78.2%
Team’s competitive schedule	4.20	0.80	84.2%
Meeting team’s members	4.12	0.98	74.2%
Amt of playing time	4.10	1.02	77.3%
Overall reputation of the college/university	4.10	0.90	80.2%
Academic reputation of the college/university	4.10	1.00	71.2%
Team’s overall win/loss record	4.03	0.86	73.3%
Team’s tradition	3.89	0.85	68.3%
Location of university	3.86	1.04	66.4%
Opportunity to play immediately	3.82	1.08	59.4%
Conference affiliation of team	3.82	0.96	61.4%
Cost of college/university	3.76	1.26	64.3%
My parents	3.76	1.37	59.5%
Housing	3.66	1.04	57.5%
Campus visit	3.64	1.13	62.4%
Fan support of the team	3.60	1.12	52.5%
Social life at the university	3.54	1.13	51.5%
Campus life at college/university	3.53	1.01	48.5%
My friends	3.26	1.39	46.5%
Size of the college/university	3.24	1.10	39.6%
Team sponsorships (e.g. Nike, Adidas, UnderArmor)	3.24	1.39	42.5%
Amt of media coverage	2.96	1.24	30.7%
High school coach	2.87	1.44	37.6%
Team’s website, Facebook, Twitter	2.26	1.21	34.7%

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this research was to identify the college choice factors mostsalient to Division I athletes attending urban-serving institutions. Table 2highlights the factors that were most readily identified by these studentathletes as impactful and relates to Hossler and Gallagher’s (1987)choice stage. Using symbolic interactionism (SI)—a social psychologicaltheory examining how sports are related to peoples’ choices and identities—may be beneficial for understanding the most and leastimportant factors for student athletes (Vermillion, 2010). As reported bystudent athletes, there are many factors that go into the choice to attend this particular urban-serving institution. Personal or social relationships (e.g.coaching staff, social atmosphere of team), career goals (e.g. support services, availability of major, career opportunities after graduation),finances (e.g. amount of financial aid/scholarship offered), and program success (e.g. opportunity to win conference or national championship) wereself-reported as influencing their decisions. Conversely, media coverage,technology outlets (e.g. website, Facebook, and Twitter), and previous headcoach had little to no impact upon their ultimate decision to attend thisuniversity.

These categories of factors illustrate how multi-faceted student athletes are regarding both their personal and athletic identities. Specifically, SI notes sports are important to an individual’s identity; with this information both academics and collegiate sport practitioners are able tobetter understand motives of student athletes when choosing colleges/universities and athletic departments/programs. In keeping with much previous research (e.g. Kankey & Quarterman, 2007), the importance of relationships—especially with coaches—tops the list of college choice factors. Indeed, Seifried (2006) noted the importance—on manylevels—of coaches within the lives of student athletes. Although the importance of “coaches” is not unexpected, additional results reveal the highly variegated nature of student athletes’ perceptions of themselves.

Athletic-related reasons, such as opportunity to win a conference ornational championships or the availability of resources, are still factors influencing the student athletes in this sample. However, Letawsky et al.(2003) noted the importance of non-athletic factors in deciding on a college/university. Regarding this sample, non-athletic factors appear salient,as well. For example, financial reasons (e.g. financial aid/scholarships) andpreparation for a professional career after sports (e.g. availability of major,support services offered to student athletes, and career opportunities after graduation) all had mean scores above 4.00, with almost 80% of respondents listing these non-athletic factors as ‘extremely’ or ‘very important’ in relationship to their decision to attend their urban-serving university.

Interpreting these findings from an SI framework would focus on the lack of role homogeneity within the sample. That is, these student athletes appear to“see” themselves as having multiple roles, which relates to amultifaceted or holistic identity. As a result, this research is in alignment with Letawsky et al.’s (2003) conclusions that non-athletic factors are important to student athletes, while simultaneously acknowledging that winning and athletic success is important to student athletes. Both of these models,i.e. student athlete development and performance and success, can be promoted effectively during recruiting processes.

CONCLUSION

The purpose of this research was to identify the most important college choice factors regarding Division I student athletes attending urban-serving institutions. Utilizing the college choice factors identified by Kankey and Quarterman (2007) and their analysis as a guide, student athletes were surveyedin an attempt to better understand their motives for attending an urban-serving institution. The research contributes to not only academic scholarship, but also advocates for the integration of social theory into athletic department data management strategies and recruiting. Streamlining the recruiting processis important in a collegiate athletic climate that is fiscally constrained and extremely competitive, especially at the Division I, FBS, and FCS levels.Smaller, less visible sports and/or athletic departments must find ways to become more efficient with student athlete recruitment. Additionally,common sensical or popular notions of funneling money into newer athletic facilities and media or technological outlets do not appear productive for all levels of collegiate sport; they are not a panacea for recruiting barriers nordo they automatically translate into traditional definitions of success. While these highly popular endeavors are important to maintaining a visible athletic department profile, this research hypothesizes—based upon the aforementioned results—they should not be viewed as the most productive recruiting tools. This research has identified how multifaceted student athletes may very well be, and that a commitment to a holistic student development model may be an efficient recruiting tool for student athletes,especially within Division I, urban-serving universities.

Limitations & future research

As with any research, there are limitations that should be identified.Firstly, the university student athlete population that was surveyed did notinclude a football team, which not only decreased the number of potentialsurvey respondents, but also limits the generalizability of the results. Additionally, using a Division I athletic department also decreases thegeneralizability of the research. Future research should extend the college choice factor scales to include FBS and FCS schools. Focusing on urban-serving institutions is a productive endeavor, but more research needs to be doneinvolving the athletic departments in these types of colleges/universities.According the Coalition of Urban Serving Universities, there are almost 50 nationally recognized urban-serving schools (Great cities, great universities,n.d.), many of which fund athletic programs.

Another limitation involves extrapolating group level summaries (such asmeans of college choice factors) to the individualistic level. SI recognizes the importance of group dynamics upon the individual. However, recruiting and the decision to attend one particular university is a decision that ultimately comes down to a single person, as evidenced in Hossler and Gallagher’s(1987) model, which focuses on the individualistic decision. Student athlete recruitment is a dynamic social psychological process that appears to be acombination of many factors. Sole reliance upon the factors identified in this research would be a disservice to not only collegiate sport practitioners, butalso the recruited student athletes.

APPLICATIONS IN SPORT

Division I student athletes see themselves as more than solely athletes;they have many “roles” to play throughout a given day, week,semester, or season. These roles include, but are not limited to: the athleterole (wanting program success), the social role with others (coachrelationships and social atmosphere of the team), and the student role(focusing on academics and preparing for a professional career after sports).It is important for collegiate sport practitioners involved in recruiting torealize that funneling resources exclusively into media/technology outlets orfacilities does not appear to be efficient or productive recruiting tools. Instead, these practitioners during recruiting efforts should focus on:programs for student success, professional preparation opportunities,highlighting the social and personal relationships within their athletic department/program, and programmatic success. The aforementioned focal pointsillustrate not only holistic student athlete development but also present athletic departments an opportunity for increasing campus wide collaborative efforts.

Of particular importance to urban-serving universities and athleticadministrators, the factor “location of the university” had a meanof 3.86 (midpoint of scale, M=3.00) with over 66% of respondents indicating itwas ‘extremely’ or ‘very important’ to them. It could be interpreted—cautiously, of course—that the stigma of the urban environment education as a disadvantage is unfounded and that, to some studentsor majors, the urban-serving mission and context could be perceived as a unique advantage.

REFERENCES

Anderson, E. (2005). In the game: Gay athletes and the cult of masculinity. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Astin, A. W. (1965). College preferences of very able student. Collegeand University, 40(3), 292-297.

Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Coalition of urban serving universities. (n.d.). Great cities, great universities: Advancing a shared agenda for America’s cities and metroregions. Retrieved fromhttp://www.usucoalition.org/downloads/part1/about_USU.pdf.

Coakley, J. (2007). Sports in society: Issues and controversies.(9th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education

Cunningham, G. B. (2007). Diversity in sport organizations. Scottsdale, AZ: Holcomb Hathaway Publishers.

Donnelly, P. & Young, K. (1999). Rock climbers and rugby players: Identity construction and confirmation. In J. Coakley & P. Donnelly (Eds.)Inside sports (pp. 67-76). London and New York: Routledge.

Eitzen, S. D. & Sage, G. H. (2009). Sociology of North Americansport. (8th ed.). Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.

Fielitz, L. R. (2001). Factors influencing the student-athletes’decision to attend the United States military academy (Doctoral dissertation,The Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA). Dissertation Abstracts International, 62, 144.

Fine, G. A. (1993). The sad demise, mysterious disappearance, and glorious triumph of symbolic interactionism. Annual Review of Sociology, 19,61-87.

Fortier, R. S. (1986). Freshman football players’ perception offactors influencing their choice of college (Doctoral dissertation, TheUniversity of North Dakota, Grand Fords, ND). Dissertation Abstracts International 48, 111.

Giese, R. F. (1986). A comparison of college choice factors and influential sources of information between division three male athletes and male nonathletes (Doctoral Dissertation, Kent State University, Kent, OH).Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 169.

Gorman, W. P. (1976). An evaluation of student-attracting methods anduniversity features by attending students. College and University, 51,220-225.

Hossler, D. R. & Gallagher, K. S. (1987). Studying student collegechoice. A three-phase model and implication for policymakers. College and University, 62(3), 207-222.

Howey, K. R. (2008).Toward identifying attributes of urban teachereducation. Retrieved from The University of Cincinnati, The Center forUrban Education (CUE) website:http://www.usucoalition.org/downloads/part4/UrbanTeacher_Preparation_11-14-08.pdf.

Hu, S., & Hossler, D. (2000). Willingness to pay and preference forprivate institutions. Research in Higher Education, 41, 685-701.

Hughes, M. & Kroehler, C. J. (2005). Sociology: The core. (7thed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Jordan, S. (2007, July 17). Stop starving our urban public universities.Inside Higher Ed Retrievedhttp://www.insidehighered.com/views/2007/07/17/jordan.

Kankey, K. & Quarterman, J. (2007). Factors influencing the university choice of NCAA division I softball players. The SMART Journal, III(II), 35-49.

Kealy, M., & Rockel, M. L. (19870. Student perceptions of college quality: The influence of college recruitment policies. Journal of HigherEducation, 58(6), 683-703.

Kraft, R. & Dickerson, K. (1996). Influencing the footballprospect’s choice of college: Football-related factors outweigh academicand facility considerations. Coach & Athletic Director, 65,72-74.

Letawsky, N. R., Schneider, R. G., Pedersen, P. M., Palmer, C. J. (2003.)Factors influencing the college selection process of student-athletes: Aretheir factors similar to non-athletes? College Student Journal, 37, 4,604-610.

Lourman, L. D. & Garman, G. (1995). College selectivity and earning.Journal of Labor Economics, 13, 289-308.

Nicodemus, K. A. (1990). Predicting the college choice of the female student-athlete: An application of the linear additive expectancy-value model(Fishbein Model) (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Nebraska, Lincoln,NE). Dissertation Abstracts International, 51, 144.

Ritzer, G. (2000). Sociological theory. (5th ed.). NY:McGraw-Hill.

Sartore, M. L. & Cunningham, G. B. (2007). Explaining theunder-representation of women in leadership positions of sport organizations: Asymbolic interactionist perspective. Quest, 59, 244-266.

Seifried, C. (2006). Examining punishment and discipline: Defending the useof punishment by coaches. Quest, 60, 370-386.

Stryker, S. (1980). Symbolic interactionism: A social structuralversion. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin/Cummings.

Ulferts, L. (1992). Factors influencing recruitment of collegiate basketballplayers in institutions of higher education in the upper Midwest (Doctoraldissertation, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND). Dissertation Abstracts International, 54(03), 770.

Vermillion, M. (2010). College choice factors influencing community collegesoftball players. Journal of Coaching Education, 3 (1), 1-20.

Vermillion, M., Friedrich, C. & Holtz, L. (2009). Collegestudents’ perceptions of Native American imagery in sport.International Journal of Sport Management, 11,1, 111-140.

U.S. Sports Academy2016-04-01T09:11:40-05:00November 29th, 2012|Contemporary Sports Issues, Sports Facilities, Sports Management, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology|Comments Off