An Analysis of Carbon Emissions from College Football Recruiting Visits

Authors: Jeffrey J. Fountain1, Thomas Wuerzer2, & Peter S. Finley1

1Department of Management, Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA

2Department of Public Administration and Real Estate Development, Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA

 

Corresponding Author:

Jeffrey J. Fountain, Ph.D.

3301 College Avenue

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314

[email protected]

954-262-8129

Jeffrey Fountain, Ph.D., and Peter Finley, Ph.D., are Professors of Sport Management at the H. Wayne Huizenga College of Business and Entrepreneurship at Nova Southeastern University. Their research interests focus on issues in college athletics.

Thomas Wuerzer, Ph.D., is Professor in the Department of Public Administration & Real Estate Development at Nova Southeastern University. His research focus is on Geographic Information Systems.

ABSTRACT 

Recruiting college football players to come play for a National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Power-5 school is highly competitive, with each school inviting recruits nationwide on official campus visits. By estimating the carbon emissions generated, this study examined the environmental impact of official recruiting visits (n = 7,045) to Power-5 schools from 2013 to 2020. Using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to geocode recruits’ hometowns and calculate travel distances, a Recruit Visit Carbon Footprint (RVCF) was calculated to approximate the CO2eq emissions for each visit. The analysis focused on the 23 Power-5 schools with over 250 reported official visits. The findings revealed substantial variability in RVCF among schools, with 15 of the 23 schools increasing their carbon footprint in the latter years of the study. Still, the higher-spending athletic departments tended to have lower RVCFs. The findings provide valuable insights into the environmental impact of recruiting activities and highlight the importance of addressing this overlooked aspect of college sports’ carbon emissions.

KEYWORDS: Carbon Footprint, Power-5, Recruiting, Official Visit, College Football

INTRODUCTION 

As societal awareness of the environmental impact of both mega sporting events and routine contests (regular season games) has increased, many sports organizations, teams, and sponsors have come to understand the need to assess the carbon footprint they create (10). As noted by Dolf et al. (13), several researchers have stressed that sports events are worth investigating to leverage broader change because of the high-profile nature of such events, because they are capable of creating real and meaningful action (11, 19). Several athletic departments have promoted their initiatives throughout the last decade and publicized their efforts to reduce and offset their environmental impact by tracking and reducing carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions (CO2eq). The typical path toward claiming to be carbon neutral for college athletic departments is to assess the environmental impact of the day-to-day operations, home game operations, and off-campus travel for official tournaments and games. However, it is important to recognize that the carbon footprint begins long before sporting events are played; for college sports, this goes back to the initial recruitment phase of the athletes, which typically requires them to travel as part of the recruiting process.

In 2020, the Power-5 conferences included the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC), Big 12 Conference, Big Ten Conference, Pacific 12 Conference, and the Southeastern Conference (SEC). Over the years, the number of Power-5 schools increasing their investment in recruiting athletes has grown, with 38 of the 52 public Power-5 schools reporting a significant growth in overall athletic department recruiting expenditures (37). One extreme example was the University of Georgia’s athletic department, which increased its overall recruiting budget from $308,000 in 2005 to $4.5 million by 2022 (23).

Recruiting

Each recruit is permitted one official visit per school, extendable only if there is a change in the coaching staff, with each visit lasting no more than 48 hours or one weekend (29). Visits are classified by the funding source; when the host school covers expenses such as transportation, lodging, meals, and entertainment for the recruit and their parents or guardians, it is deemed an official visit (29). Historically, recruits were limited to five official visits; however, this cap was removed in 2023, allowing unlimited visits while maintaining the “only one visit per school” rule (30).

College football recruiting visits often feature expensive, extravagant events designed to attract recruits (12, 24, 36). The financial commitment to a recruiting weekend at Clemson University in the fall of 2019, during which the Tigers brought eleven prospects to campus (they would eventually sign ten of them), ended with a total bill of $85,000 (32). While the NCAA prohibits media from attending recruiting events or interacting with prospects while on campus, the expenditures from that weekend provided insight into the itinerary, which included travel by professional car service to and from local airports, flights to Greenville-Spartanburg, and transportation to the campus, about 40 miles away. In addition, two charter buses were used to transport prospects and their families to the finest restaurants in the area, including a steakhouse about 45 minutes from campus (32). Another example was the University of Texas spending over $280,000 during a single weekend in June 2022 to host nine recruits, including highly touted quarterback Arch Manning (20).

Carbon Footprinting

The concept and measurement of an “ecological footprint” was introduced by Wackernagel and Rees (34) and originally quantified the land and sea area necessary to support human populations. Subsequent adaptations of this concept have focused on the “carbon footprint,” which estimates the land required to sequester CO2 emissions attributable to human activities. This notion has evolved into broader assessments such as the “life cycle impact,” which evaluates the environmental impact of products and services throughout their life cycles (31).

Research by Čuček et al. (9) and Pandey et al. (31) expanded the scope of assessment to include calculating sustainability metrics and measuring energy, water, and ecological impacts. These studies defined a carbon footprint as “the quantity of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs), expressed in terms of CO2 equivalents, emitted by an individual, organization, process, product, or event within a specified boundary” (31) and as “a quantitative measurement describing the appropriation of natural resources by humans,” (9). This study adopted these definitions to evaluate the carbon footprint of prospective college football players while making their official recruiting visits to college campuses.

Attempts to measure carbon footprint related to sports have historically focused on major events and the travel of sports teams. Examples include the findings that approximately 560 tons of CO2eq was created during the 2004 Football Association (FA) Cup Final in the United Kingdom (one soccer game) (4), 1,260 tons of CO2eq for the 2004 Wales Rally (an Autosport’s event over four days) (5), and 144,120 tons of CO2eq for the stages of the Tour de France held in the United Kingdom in 2007 (the Prologue and Stage One) (6). Most studies focused solely on the carbon footprint of spectators, though a limited number of studies examined participants, such as teams and staff members.

The environmental impact of all college activities, including collegiate sports has garnered significant attention (28). However, there appears to be no available research that has explicitly focused on the environmental impact (carbon footprint) produced throughout the college football recruiting season. Therefore, the researchers sought to explore and determine the approximate carbon emissions produced during official college football recruiting visits from Power-5 schools. This study utilized the reported official recruiting visits between 2013 and 2020. Using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to conduct spatial analysis of multimodal travel, including car and plane trips, the researchers were able to calculate the approximate travel distances and corresponding carbon footprint of each recruit.

The Recruit Visit Carbon Footprint (RVCF) was created as a proxy measure utilizing prior carbon footprinting research of sport tourism. This approach enabled a systematic exploration of three primary research questions.

RQ1: Which Power-5 schools generated the largest RVCF between 2013 and 2020?

RQ2: Did RVCF totals increase or decrease over time?

RQ3: Was there a correlation between each school’s financial, recruiting, and performance variables and their RVCF?

METHODS 

Data Collection

Data on official recruiting visits, published by 247sports.com, was collected for the years 2013 to 2020. Previous research has utilized data from 247sports.com, recognizing it as a well-established source of college football recruiting information (21, 27, 35). The dataset included dates of official school visits and recruits’ hometowns. Prior research also utilized GIS to geocode locations such as athletes’ hometowns or high school locations for analysis (1, 26, 38). GIS geocoding takes a specific location, such as addresses or towns, and references it as a mapped location. Therefore, this study geocoded each football recruit’s hometown, the location of each college visited, and the closest major airport to calculate the approximate travel distances for spatial analysis.

The study utilized ESRI ArcPRO 3.5 (Esri, Redlands, CA, USA) software with the Business Analyst extension to geocode the dataset. To focus on the highest-producing RVCF programs and to make the data set more manageable, a minimum threshold of 250 visits was established. Of the 64 Power-5 schools, 23 (35.9%) met the 250-visitor threshold, totalling 7,045 reported official visits. The travel routes for each visit were then calculated using GIS to determine the most efficient mode of travel. Driving directly to the school was the most efficient mode for 1,636 visits. Typically, these distances were around 200 miles or less to the campus. For recruits living over 200 miles from the visiting campus, if their distance from their home to an airport necessitated a long drive followed by a flight, driving was deemed more efficient due to the extensive travel time involved in flying to the campus. For the remaining 5,409 visits, air travel was deemed the most efficient mode. For these visits, three travel distances were calculated: 1) the drive from the recruits’ hometown to the nearest major airport, 2) the flight miles from that airport to the nearest major airport to the campus they visited, and 3) the drive from that airport to the campus. These distances were doubled to account for the return trip and integrated into a travel matrix to approximate CO2eq emissions from transportation.

Additionally, financial data for athletic departments (i.e., Football Revenue, Football Recruiting was sourced from the Knight-Newhouse College Athletics database (25), team performance was sourced from ESPN.com (16). The descriptions and summary statistics for these variables are provided in Table 1. Utilizing these variables allowed for additional analysis to explore potential correlations between an athletic department’s RVCF and financial data, performance data, and recruiting data.

Table 1 Descriptive Analysis of Variables: Mean and Standard Deviation
VariableDescriptionMeanSD
FB_TotalRevTotal Revenue from Football$66,518,526$25,205,244
Mens_TotalRevTotal Revenue from all Men’s Sports (including Football)$84,428,967$25,300,581
FB_MensRev%Football’s Revenue as a Percentage of all Men’s Sports Revenues77.40%11.17%
Dept_TotalRevTotal Revenue from the entire Athletic Department$125,143,966$31,108,327
FB_DeptRev%Football’s Revenue as a Percentage of the entire Athletic Department Revenues52.50%13.10%
Mens_RecruitExpTotal Recruiting Expenses from all Men’s Sports (including Football)$1,391,362$704,861
Dept_RecruitExpTotal Recruiting Expenses from the entire Athletic Department$1,878,962$855,080
FB_OpsExpTotal Operation Expenses for Football$5,683,499$2,558,649
Mens_OpsExpTotal Operation Expenses for all Men’s Sports (including Football)$8,800,193$4,035,500
Dept_OpsExpTotal Operating Expenses for the entire Athletic Department$12,787,529$5,068,156
FB_TotalExpTotal Expenses for the entire Football Program$33,846,192$11,218,516
Mens_TotalExpTotal Expenses for all Men’s Sports Programs (including Football)$53,035,310$13,927,935
FB_MensExp%Football Expenses as a Percentage of all Men’s Sports Expenses63.18%7.58%
Dept_TotalExpTotal Expenses for the entire Athletic Department$116,141,712$27,071,219
FB_DeptExp%Football Expenses as a Percentage of the entire Athletic Department Expenses63.18%7.58%
Win_PercentageFootball teams Win Percentage62.43%19.97%
    

Recruit Visit Carbon Footprint

Calculating CO2eq emissions from travel can vary depending on the methods and formulas used. In this study, the researchers approximated the RVCF utilizing established methods from prior sport tourism carbon footprint research. The framework by Franchetti and Apul (18) required three boundaries. 1) Temporal Boundary, which refers to the period used for analysis, which, in this study, included Power-5 official recruiting visits from 2013 to 2020. 2) Organizational Boundary, which defines the measured entity, ensuring that only emissions produced from the designated entity are included. Here, it refers to the travel for a single recruit’s official visit to a Power-5 school. 3) Operational Boundary, which is based on the scope of emissions, including direct emissions, indirect emissions, and indirect products. The operational boundary was set at direct emissions only for this study.

In order to operationalize the boundaries, calculations were used to approximate each recruit’s carbon footprint as they travelled from their hometown to their selected school for an official recruiting visit. Cooper’s (2020) approximation of the University of Tennessee’s football gameday tourism carbon footprint was used as a framework for this study. The method for approximating the carbon footprint of sport tourism was applied to the dataset to calculate the approximated total amount of CO2eq emissions produced by each recruiting visit. The total carbon footprint of each visit was calculated by considering direct emissions from transportation (car and flight miles), food consumption per day, waste per day, and hotel stays (8, 14). The EPA formula for the average gasoline-powered passenger vehicle (3.91 × 10^-4 metric tons CO2eq per mile) was applied and converted into kilograms (15). For air travel emissions, the formula (air miles × 0.24 × 1.891) combined the Blue Sky Model formula and the Carbon Fund’s radiative forcing factor (1.891) to provide a total CO2eq per person per pound figure, which was then converted to kilograms (2, 3). Hotel accommodation emissions were calculated using Filimonau’s (17) factor of 11.65 kg CO2eq per night, multiplied by two to account for the typical two-night stay during a recruiting visit. For food and waste emissions, factors from Cooper’s (7) study were used: 7.4 kg CO2eq per person per day for food and 1.1 kg CO2eq per day for waste, multiplied by two for the typical 48-hour visit. Utilizing these formulas allowed the researchers to approximate the RVCF for each reported recruiting visit.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Over the eight years, the top 23 highly-visited schools collectively emitted 2.3 million kg of CO2eq, averaging 328 kg CO2eq per recruiting visit. For context, the global average annual CO2eq emission per person is approximately 4.7 tons (4,263 kg), according to the IEA (22). Thus, the CO2eq for a single 48-hour recruiting visit represents about 7.7% of the average person’s global annual CO2eq footprint.

Table 2 provides a breakdown of RVCF variables along with the means and totals for all 23 schools to address RQ1, “Which Power-5 schools generated the largest RVCF between 2013 and 2020?” Washington State (n = 276) reported the highest total RVCF at 171,489.84 kg CO2eq, and the highest mean RVCF at 621.34 kg CO2eq. In contrast, the University of South Carolina (n = 263) had the smallest carbon footprint, with a total RVCF of 55,621.71 kg CO2eq and an average RVCF per visit of 211.49 kg CO2eq. All official visits to Washington State and South Carolina are depicted using GIS maps in Figure 1, which shows Washington State attracted several recruits from the Midwest, Florida, and Texas. At the same time, South Carolina only invited a few recruits who required a long-distance flight to visit Columbia, South Carolina.

Table 2   RVCF by school for all reported official visits from 2013 to 2020  
Schooln% Drove (No Flight)Car (No Flight)Car  (To/From Airport)FlightHotelFoodWasteMSDTotal
Washington State2762.17%564.4821,782.22137,796.796,405.954,084.79855.60621.34362.98171,489.84
Oregon2813.20%667.817,322.00150,332.796,522.004,158.79871.10604.54323.99169,874.50
Nebraska3735.90%1,437.039,203.29131,283.868,657.325,520.391,156.30421.60171.96157,258.20
Alabama37817.99%6,138.0121,504.7481,842.828,773.375,594.391,171.80330.34219.30125,025.12
Minnesota32815.55%1,543.639,279.4494,019.657,612.874,854.391,016.80360.75190.85118,326.78
Louisville3437.87%1,814.239,356.0792,166.147,961.025,076.391,063.30342.38189.87117,437.16
Oklahoma31521.27%7,627.739,318.5385,483.067,311.144,661.99976.50364.79187.59115,378.96
Tennessee35614.89%5,866.3411,129.2172,691.178,262.755,268.791,103.60293.04213.71104,321.87
Texas A&M32746.18%15,370.2818,162.7656,491.357,589.664,839.591,013.70314.50223.19103,467.35
Washington25122.31%2,329.335,626.1481,958.425,825.713,714.80778.10399.33250.68100,232.49
Ohio State30126.58%7,676.345,596.1469,715.536,986.204,454.79933.10316.82223.4995,362.10
Arkansas32515.38%4,563.0713,222.0664,152.597,543.244,809.991,007.50293.23166.9795,298.46
Indiana27315.38%3,307.9013,293.6462,085.006,336.324,040.39846.30329.34169.1389,909.57
Florida33328.53%8,658.696,782.7656,932.067,728.924,928.391,032.30258.45179.7686,063.13
Miami30139.53%3,920.904,735.8663,566.686,986.204,454.79933.10280.01263.3084,597.54
Florida State31714.20%3,929.026,600.1159,945.347,357.564,691.59982.70262.44182.3083,506.32
Auburn31335.14%9,914.5514,971.1242,452.127,264.724,632.39970.30256.25161.7180,205.21
Georgia27033.70%6,709.3215,279.3141,800.056,266.693,995.99837.00276.78196.7074,888.37
Penn State25429.53%9,210.7316,663.5938,471.375,895.343,759.20787.40289.49192.6574,787.61
Mississippi State29356.31%17,224.2017,413.1326,745.766,800.524,336.39908.30250.61176.9073,428.32
Kentucky27419.71%4,331.997,066.4249,895.236,359.534,055.19849.40264.81146.5772,557.76
LSU30038.00%7,465.215,491.1341,783.316,962.994,439.99930.00222.53146.7367,072.63
South Carolina26332.70%7,526.485,361.7631,921.566,104.233,892.40815.30211.49128.8055,621.71
Total7,04523.57%137,797.27255,161.411,633,532.66163,514.32104,265.8721,839.48328.91203.012,316,111.00
Note: Car, Flight, Hotel, Food, Waste, Mean, Standard Deviation, and Total are in kg CO2eq

To explore the second research question, “Did RVCF totals increase or decrease over time?” the dataset needed to be segmented. During this time period college football programs did not get an entirely new roster of players each year; consequently, examining each year’s change would yield varying results based on how many recruits the school needed that year. Rosters typically turn over every 4 to 5 years. Therefore, with eight years of data available, the dataset was subdivided into two four-year periods (2013-2016 and 2017-2020) to better examine changes over a longer period of time.

Table 3 shows the schools with the largest changes in their mean RVCFs. Fifteen schools experienced an increase in mean RVCF between the two time periods. Ohio State had the largest increase in mean difference (MD = 74.77 kg CO2eq), with its mean RVCF rising from 280.80 kg CO2eq in 2013-2016 to 355.57 kg CO2eq in 2017-2020. Oregon saw the largest overall increase in total RVCF, increasing 29,617.65 kg CO2eq during the latter period. Figure 2 utilizes GIS maps to depict all recruiting visits to Ohio State for each period, highlighting an expanded recruiting range that targeted more players from Texas and the Western United States. Conversely, eight schools showed a reduction in mean RVCF between the two time periods, with the University of Miami experiencing the largest decrease in mean difference (MD = -61.96 kg CO2eq). Although Washington State’s mean reduction was not as considerable as the bottom three schools, it had the largest total reduction in RVCF, decreasing by 19,562.28 kg CO2eq between the two periods.

Table 3 Largest Mean Difference in RVCF between the two time periods
 2013-2016 2017-2020 
SchoolsnTotalM nTotalM DifferenceMD
Ohio State15643,804.86280.80 14551,557.24355.57 7,752.3974.77
Penn State10225,847.68253.41 15247,683.11313.70 21,835.4460.30
Oregon12270,128.43574.82 15999,746.07627.33 29,617.6552.51
Florida St.16546,656.85282.77 15236,535.52240.37 -10,121.32-42.40
Arkansas15349,311.35322.30 17245,987.11267.37 -3,324.24-54.93
Miami15146,944.88310.89 15037,339.37248.93 -9,605.51-61.96
Note: Totals and Means are in kg CO2eq

Wuerzer et al. (38) identified county-level geographical hotspots in the United States overproducing elite college football talent, necessitating migration to other states to find available roster spots on Power-5 football teams. Consequently, Power-5 schools in regions with minimal elite talent and far from these hotspots must expand their recruiting efforts, increasing their RVCF. Schools that rely heavily on air travel for recruiting will naturally have a larger carbon footprint, as air travel is the primary contributor to total RVCF. This is evident from the top three schools with the highest total RVCF also have the lowest percentages of recruits visiting within driving distance to their campuses (Washington State (2.17%), Oregon (3.20%), and Nebraska (5.90%)). Despite this, schools still make strategic choices in their recruiting practices. For example, as shown in Figure 1, Washington State invited several recruits from Florida, a state with prominent county-level recruiting hotspots, instead of focusing on nearby regions or closer recruiting hotspots in California and Texas.

A Pearson correlation coefficient analysis was conducted to address research question three: “Were there any correlations between schools’ financial, recruiting, and performance variables and their RVCF?” The analysis identified two significant correlations, both negative: Total RVCF and Athletic Department Total Annual Revenue [r(176) = -.202, p = .007] and Athletic Department Total Annual Expenses [r(176) = -.198, p = .008]. These findings suggest that athletic departments with higher revenues and expenses tend to have lower RVCFs. This could be attributed to the fact that Power-5 programs with substantial financial resources often have well-established and highly regarded football programs, enabling them to attract top recruits from within a closer geographical range. Consequently, these programs would be less dependent on long-distance recruiting, which typically requires greater air travel, the primary contributor to a school’s RVCF, thereby lowering their overall RVCF.

Overall, these findings highlight the multifaceted nature of college football recruiting, shaped by a complex interplay of positional needs, recruits’ availability, and recruits’ geographical location. The competitive nature of Power-5 college football recruiting requires substantial time and effort to build top-tier recruiting classes, prompting many schools to expand their recruiting reach over time, which subsequently increases their RVCF. The findings show that 15 of the 23 schools increased their RVCF over the two periods. Given the fierce competition for elite talent, it is unlikely that any football program would willingly reduce its recruiting-related carbon emissions if it jeopardizes on-field performance. This creates a significant challenge for universities wanting to adopt more sustainable operations.

CONCLUSION 

This study provides a substantial initial assessment of the carbon footprint associated with college football recruiting. By utilizing GIS for recruits’ hometowns, college locations, and nearest major airports to calculate travel distances, the researchers provided an approximation of each school’s RVCF Recruiting Visit Carbon Footprint (RVCF). The findings reveal substantial variability in RVCF among schools, highlighting the different levels of environmental impact of recruiting. The study also found that higher-spending athletic departments tended to have lower RVCFs, suggesting that successful programs may not need to extend their recruiting reach as widely.

However, several limitations must be acknowledged. The data for this study came from a third-party recruiting website, thus allowing for only an approximate carbon footprint for each official visit. Also, various models and formulas can be used to estimate CO2eq emissions from travel, but each carries assumptions and biases. Moreover, policy changes during the study period, such as the NCAA’s 2016 rule change allowing schools to cover travel costs for up to two parents or guardians accompanying a recruit, could result in a higher actual carbon footprint than the reported RVCF from this study (33). More detailed research is essential for a more accurate and comprehensive understanding of the carbon emissions associated with college football recruiting. Unfortunately, without a governing body mandating standardized reporting of recruiting carbon emissions using consistent formulas, it will remain difficult to fully assess and compare the carbon emissions of different athletic departments.

APPLICATIONS IN SPORT

For universities aiming to reduce their athletic department’s carbon footprint, including all recruiting activities in their calculations is crucial. A comprehensive approach would enable the development of effective strategies that promote sustainability without sacrificing athletic success. Athletic departments can better incorporate sustainability into their planning and decision-making processes by understanding the true carbon footprint generated by each sport, school, and conference.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was supported by a college-level seed grant focused on sustainability issues from the Huizenga College of Business and Entrepreneurship’s Societal Impact Seed Grant program.

REFERENCES 

1. Andris, C., Measuring geographic pull power: A case study of US college athletic teams. The Professional Geographer, 2018. 70(3): p. 476-490.

2. BlueSkyModel.org. 1 Air Mile. 2024; Available from: https://blueskymodel.org/air-mile.

3. CarbonFund.org. Calculation Methods. 2024; Available from: https://carbonfund.org/calculation-methods/.

4. Collins, A., et al., Assessing the environmental consequences of major sporting events: The 2003/04 FA Cup Final. Urban studies, 2007. 44(3): p. 457-476.

5. Collins, A., C. Jones, and M. Munday, Assessing the environmental impacts of mega sporting events: Two options? Tourism management, 2009. 30(6): p. 828-837.

6. Collins, A., M. Munday, and A. Roberts, Environmental consequences of tourism consumption at major events: An analysis of the UK stages of the 2007 Tour de France. Journal of Travel Research, 2012. 51(5): p. 577-590.

7. Cooper, J.A., Making orange green? A critical carbon footprinting of Tennessee football gameday tourism. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 2020. 24(1): p. 31-51.

8. Cooper, J.A. and D.H. Alderman, Cancelling March Madness exposes opportunities for a more sustainable sports tourism economy. Tourism Geographies, 2020. 22(3): p. 525-535.

9. Čuček, L., J.J. Klemeš, and Z. Kravanja, A review of footprint analysis tools for monitoring impacts on sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2012. 34: p. 9-20.

10. Daddi, T., et al., Environmental management of sport events: a focus on European professional football. Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal, 2022. 12(2): p. 208-232.

11. Death, C., ‘Greening’the 2010 FIFA World Cup: Environmental sustainability and the mega-event in South Africa. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 2011. 13(2): p. 99-117.

12. Dimengo, N., Crazy Sports Recruiting Stories. Bleacher Report, 2014.

13. Dolf, M. and P. Teehan, Reducing the carbon footprint of spectator and team travel at the University of British Columbia’s varsity sports events. Sport Management Review, 2015. 18(2): p. 244-255.

14. El Hanandeh, A., Quantifying the carbon footprint of religious tourism: the case of Hajj. Journal of cleaner Production, 2013. 52: p. 53-60.

15. EPA. Greenhouse Gases Equivalencies Calculator – Calculations and References. US EPA 2024; Available from: https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-calculator-calculations-and-references.

16. ESPN.com. College Football Stats. 2024; Available from: https://www.espn.com/college-football/stats/_/view/team.

17. Filimonau, V., et al., Reviewing the carbon footprint analysis of hotels: Life Cycle Energy Analysis (LCEA) as a holistic method for carbon impact appraisal of tourist accommodation. Journal of cleaner production, 2011. 19(17-18): p. 1917-1930.

18. Franchetti, M.J. and D. Apul, Carbon footprint analysis: concepts, methods, implementation, and case studies. 2012: CRC press.

19. Getz, D., Policy for sustainable and responsible festivals and events: Institutionalization of a new paradigm. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 2009. 1(1): p. 61-78.

20. Glasspiegel, R., Texas spent $280,000 on Arch Manning recruitment weekend. New York Post, 2022.

21. Huml, M.R., et al., If we build it, will they come? The effect of new athletic facilities on recruiting rankings for power five football and men’s basketball programs. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 2019. 29(1): p. 1-18.

22. IEA. The world’s top 1% of emitters produce over 1000 times more CO2 than the bottom 1% – Analysis – IEA. 2024 2024/08/31/; Available from: https://www.iea.org/commentaries/the-world-s-top-1-of-emitters-produce-over-1000-times-more-co2-than-the-bottom-1.

23. Jeyarajah, S., College football recruiting expenses by conference: SEC stands out as Georgia spends big for success in 2022, in CBSSports. 2023: CBSSports.com.

24. Jude, A., Ice carvings and lavish dinners: A look at the cost of football recruiting at Washington. Spokesman, 2020.

25. Knight-Newhouse. Knight-Newhouse College Athletics Database 2024; Available from: https://knightnewhousedata.org/.

26. Macaulay, C., J. Cooper, and S. Dougherty, High school football and the athletic-market economy: Recruiting, producing, and manufacturing talent. Sociology of Sport Journal, 2019. 36(3): p. 203-212.

27. Mankin, J.A., J. Rivas, and J.J. Jewell, The effectiveness of college football recruiting ratings in predicting team success: A longitudinal study. Mankin, J., Rivas, J. & Jewell, J.(2021) The Effectiveness of College Football Recruiting Rankings in Predicting Team Success: A Longitudinal Study. Research in Business and Economics Journal, 2021. 14: p. 4-22.

28. Natural Resources Defense Council, Collegiate game changers: How campus sport is going green. 2013, Natural Resources Defense Council.

29. NCAA. Recruiting – Eligibility Center. 2024; Available from: https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2014/10/8/recruiting.aspx.

30. NCSA. Official Visits | How Does an Official Visit Work? 2024; Available from: https://www.ncsasports.org/ncaa-eligibility-center/recruiting-rules/official-visits.

31. Pandey, D., M. Agrawal, and J.S. Pandey, Carbon footprint: current methods of estimation. Environmental monitoring and assessment, 2011. 178(1): p. 135-160.

32. Raynor, G., Behind the scenes of Clemson’s biggest recruiting weekend. New York Times, 2020.

33. VanHaaren, T., NCAA allows schools to pay for two guardians to accompany recruits on official visits, in ESPN. 2016.

34. Wackernagel, M. and W. Rees, Ecological footprint: Reducing human impact on the earth. New Society, Gabriola Island, BC, Canada, 1996.

35. Watkins, J. and K. Slater, Talent level and major distribution in “Power Five” conference football programs. Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in Education, 2021. 15(2): p. 150-170.

36. Wiltfong, S., New LSU 2024 QB commit Colin Hurley takes you inside an epic weekend. 247Sports, 2022.

37. Wittry, A., An Analysis Of College Football Recruiting Costs, in Athletic Director U. 2022: https://athleticdirectoru.com.

38. Wuerzer, T., J.J. Fountain, and P.S. Finley, An Analysis of the Geographic Origins and Migration Patterns of Elite College Football Players. Geographical Review, 2023. 114(2): p. 157-179.

2025-10-13T15:18:13-05:00May 27th, 2026|Contemporary Sports Issues, Research, Sports Studies, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology|Comments Off on An Analysis of Carbon Emissions from College Football Recruiting Visits

Obesity on the Line! An Analysis of High School Linemen Recruited to Play for “Power Five” Schools

Authors: Jeffrey J. Fountain1, Peter S. Finley2, and Thomas Wuerzer3

1Department of Management at Nova Southeastern University

2Department of Management at Nova Southeastern University

3Department of Public Administration & Real Estate Development at Nova Southeastern University

Correspondence:

Jeffrey J. Fountain
Carl DeSantis Building
3301 College Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, FL, 33314-7796
[email protected]
954-262-8129

Jeffrey Fountain, Ph.D., and Peter Finley, Ph.D., are both Associate Professors of Sport and Recreation Management at the H. Wayne Huizenga College of Business and Entrepreneurship at Nova Southeastern University. Their research interests focus on issues in college athletics with an emphasis on college athlete welfare.

Thomas Wuerzer, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor in the Department of Public Administration & Real Estate Development at Nova Southeastern University. His research focus is on Geographical Information Systems with an emphasis on Public Health

Obesity on the Line! An Analysis of High School Linemen Recruited to Play for “Power Five” Schools

Abstract

Purpose: This article explored the changing body sizes of high school football linemen recruited to play for “Power 5” schools between 2003 and 2020 when factoring in the position group. This study also allowed for a cross-sectional analysis to explore body size differences within and between “Power 5” conferences. Methods: The dataset contained 7,428 linemen, and a cross-sectional design was used to examine position and conference affiliation related to the differences in height, weight, and Body Mass Index over three time periods. Statistical analysis was conducted using nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis H tests and post-hoc analysis with Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons. Results: The results showed that while height did not significantly change, weight continued to increase, particularly among defensive tackles, offensive centers, and guards. Conclusions: In some “Power 5” conferences, the number of linemen recruits weighing more than 300 pounds had more than doubled over this period. This adds to the player obesity discussion and the systematic issues that allow linemen to continue to play at weight levels categorized as obese, with little apparent regard for the risk of injury or long-term health implications. Application in Sport: College football decision-makers will be able to use the results of this study to demonstrate a need for new health protocols and policies that reduce the number of obese and significantly overweight linemen.

Keywords: college football, BMI, health risk

(more…)
2023-05-05T15:24:56-05:00May 5th, 2023|Research, Sports Health & Fitness|Comments Off on Obesity on the Line! An Analysis of High School Linemen Recruited to Play for “Power Five” Schools

Roster Survival: An Exploratory Study of College Football Recruits in the Power Five Conferences

Authors: Jeffrey J. Fountain and Peter S. Finley

Corresponding Author:
Jeffrey J. Fountain
Carl DeSantis Building
3301 College Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, FL, 33314-7796
[email protected]
954-262-8129

Jeffrey Fountain, Ph.D. and Peter Finley, Ph.D., are Associate Professors of Sport and Recreation Management at the H. Wayne Huizenga College of Business and Entrepreneurship at Nova Southeastern University.

Roster Survival: An Exploratory Study of College Football Recruits in the Power Five Conferences

ABSTRACT
This study explored the retention of football players among the Power Five conference universities between 2002 and 2013. A new metric was created to evaluate roster retention beginning at the time players committed to a university as opposed to after matriculation, as is used in more common graduation-rate metrics. Results suggested a large disparity among universities between those that maintain recruits through four or more years of college football and those that have much higher roster turnover rates as well as high rates of commits never appearing on even a single roster. Additionally, the results showed the average number of games football players appeared in during the 12-year time period. The new metric developed and the results of the study are important for various stakeholders, including providing additional information for prospective college football players during the recruiting process. The metric could also provide additional data for athletic department officials when analyzing their own roster management practices as well as the past roster management practices of potential coaches. The NCAA could also benefit from this new metric as it adds information to the conversation about athletes in higher education and it provides a roster based viewpoint on the sheer number of athletes that have moved through “Big Time” college football over the years.
(more…)

2018-01-19T11:04:16-06:00January 18th, 2018|Sports Management|Comments Off on Roster Survival: An Exploratory Study of College Football Recruits in the Power Five Conferences

A Study of the Fan Motives for Varying Levels of Team Identity and Team Loyalty of College Football Fans

Submitted by David Gargone*(1)

(1) David Gargone is an assistant professor of business and director of the sport management program at Misericordia University.

*Corresponding Author:
David Gargone, Ed.D.
Misericordia University
301 Lake St
Dallas, PA 18612
[email protected]
570-674-6337

ABSTRACT
Fan motives, factors that influence a person’s decision to attend a sporting event, affect sport consumption at both the amateur and professional levels. This study identified the fan motives, selected from the Sport Interest Inventory (SII), most influential on college football fans and more specifically examined the effects on fan motive prevalence of seven variables: team identity, team loyalty, team affiliation, conference affiliation, household income, age, and level of education. All seven variables exhibited a statistically significant effect, at the p < 0.001 level, on a majority of the 17 fan motives considered, with team loyalty exhibiting a statistically significant effect (p < 0.001) on all 17 motives. In general, higher levels of team identity and team loyalty were associated with greater preference for fan motives. Across all participants, excitement, drama, sport knowledge, and interest in team were identified as the most common college football fan motives; interest in players, bonding with family, interest in sport, and escape were identified as the least common motives.

(more…)

2016-01-25T08:19:48-06:00January 25th, 2016|Sports Management|Comments Off on A Study of the Fan Motives for Varying Levels of Team Identity and Team Loyalty of College Football Fans

Watchdogs of the Fourth Estate or Homer Journalists? Newspaper Coverage of Local BCS College Football Programs

Submitted by Edward M. Kian, Ph.D., Stan Ketterer, Ph.D., Cynthia Nichols, Ph.D. and James Poling

ABSTRACT
Sport newspaper departments are regularly mocked for employing hometown journalism deemed too partial in favor of local teams. However, national media are increasingly criticizing affluent, major college football programs for scheduling games against smaller schools from the Football Championship Subdivision, most of which end in lopsided blowouts. Whereas media and sport teams have long formed a symbiotic relationship, major college athletics programs need local media less now due to the ability to post content on their own Web sites. A textual analysis was used to examine hometown media framing of these mismatches by community newspapers that cover football programs in the Big 12 Conference. Results showed newspapers rarely criticized near-by, powerhouse college football teams, but framed FCS teams as inferior. The larger the newspaper examined and the further they were away from the team covered in distance, the more likely they were to criticize hometown coaches and athletic directors. This topic has practical applications for sport mangers who face potential media criticism for scheduling contests against inferior opponents, especially in major college football.

INTRODUCTION
Despite the prevalence and popularity of sports, sports writers have long been denigrated as part of the “toy department” at newspapers due to a perceived lack of objectivity and an unwillingness to engage in critical journalism (Rowe, 2007). A common critique of local sports reporters is they accept gifts from the teams they cover (19). However, the most poignant insults are they engage in “homer” journalism by openly cheering for local squads and becoming too close to athletes. As a result, some reporters fail to fulfill their watchdog roles (2, 16).

In an effort to address questionable industry practices, the Associated Press Sports Editors adopted a code of ethics in 1974, later enhanced in 1991 (21). Sports reporters, however, may be merely acquiescing to the majority of their readers’ desires by providing more coverage of area teams, while generally framing stories about hometown stars more positively.

Further, newspapers usually sell more copies when their local sport teams are successful (50). Coverage of area winning teams could lead to an increase in advertising due to greater readership, which could lead to conflicting interests for newspapers. “Media outlets cover sports with a clear conflict of interest: Their very enterprise is deeply invested in the continued success of commodified sport,” (37, p. 338).

Teams and athletes, in turn, must attribute much of their “staggering popularity” to media coverage that promotes their games and their exploits to readers (McChesney, 1989). Without media coverage, commodified sports struggle to exist. Therefore, sports and media form a “symbiotic economic relationship” (65, p. 38).

Historically, this relationship was strongest with the closest daily newspaper to those college campuses. In many cases, hometown college football reporters are “expected to withhold information that coaches, athletic administrations and athletes perceive as harmful to the program” (43, p. 9). They also occasionally help promote the college’s athletic events that officials believe need more coverage, such as non-revenue sports. In return, reporters may receive access to practices, games, and private contact numbers for coaches and administrators, as well as insider information (43).

However, the need for this symbiotic relationship has diminished for college athletics programs due to huge revenue increases from new television deals with conferences. These deals have increased national exposure for marquee programs in college football (60). Moreover, independent fan websites, such as those affiliated with networks like Rivals.com, have the potential to reach far greater audiences of fans and alumni than local newspapers (26). Finally, more colleges are attempting to disseminate and frame the news on their teams, athletes, and coaches through their official websites and other social media, such as Twitter and Facebook (18, 49).

Meanwhile, the print newspaper industry has suffered setbacks in recent years, highlighted by constant layoffs since the late 1990s, corporate consolidation, decreased circulation, and a loss of advertising revenue (1). Some of the most prominent sports writers have left the newspaper industry to work for online sites (27). In efforts to survive, many newspapers shifted resources to their online sites, while refocusing content on local coverage (59). Whereas circulation figures have declined sharply at nearly every major U.S. newspaper since the late 1990s, most of those publications actually increased their total readership due to traffic on their websites (25). Smaller papers located close to university towns often generate much of their online readership from coverage of college athletics, partly because alumni often move there for professional careers.

However, national media are increasingly criticizing the most famous college athletics programs for many of their practices, particularly the inequities within college sports between the “halves” and “have-nots” (13). During the last two years many national sports journalists have condemned large universities in the National Collegiate Athletics Association for playing smaller ones outside their division. Specifically, they have criticized Football Bowl Subdivision schools that have played games against teams in the Football Championship Subdivision.

The 120 FBS programs in 2012 included all the big-name football programs like Texas, Michigan, Notre Dame, and Louisiana State. Forbes magazine calculated each of those football programs generated at least $100 million in value for their institutions in 2012 (54). In contrast, the 122 FCS schools included Alabama A&M, Monmouth, and Old Dominion. The median 2010 revenue for all FCS athletics programs was just $3 million (48). Therefore, many FCS athletic departments need the guaranteed lump sum payment of generally between $200,000 and $800,000 for playing a road game versus an FBS football team just to stay afloat (61).

But how do hometown newspapers frame such David vs. Goliath mismatches, particularly since the coaches and athletics directors who scheduled those contests provide them access to their programs? Local newspapers risk irritating some of their readers with critical commentary. Moreover, businesses that advertise in these papers may not appreciate negative comments about these games because they want as many visitors as possible on game days, regardless of the opponents. Therefore, the purpose of this exploratory study is to examine how objective hometown newspapers are in framing these college football “paycheck” games.

Historic Connection Between Newspapers And Organizations They Cover
Newspapers have always had a symbiotic relationship with the communities they serve. They provide news and information that residents need for a better understanding of their world, tools for daily living, and entertainment. In return, newspapers depend on local communities for readers and area businesses to help generate advertising revenue.

Journalistic independence is sometimes threatened because of this relationship. Rouner et al. (45) pointed out newspapers are businesses “with profit making taking priority over news reporting,” making it difficult for journalists in most newspapers to remain autonomous of advertising “because large advertisers are a major source of revenue” (p. 106). A survey found nearly 90% of editors at both large and small newspapers reported advertisers had tried to influence the content of stories and what is published (55). More than 70% percent indicated advertisers had attempted to kill stories, and 97% reported they had threatened to withdraw their advertising because of story content, with 90% actually doing so (55). The advertisers were most successful in influencing content of stories at smaller newspapers.

Demers (10) also found editors at larger circulation newspapers had a greater sense of autonomy in decision making than editors at smaller newspapers. Northington (36) suggested editors at smaller newspapers might have more difficulty balancing editorial independence with community involvement. In a study of editors selected to represent the range of newspapers by circulation, Reader (42) found more small-paper editors cited pressure from advertisers attempting to influence content than large-paper editors. But the biggest difference between the types of editors was a perception of direct accountability to the community, which was much stronger at smaller newspapers.

Benefits For Sports Programs Maintaining Public Relations with Local Newspapers
Public relations also plays a role in the symbiotic relationship between sports organizations and newspapers as it helps maintain a tentative but necessary bond. Although some negative stereotypes exist about sports public relations, the value added by maintaining the relationship between sports organizations and local newspapers is essential to fostering the organization’s credibility in local communities, while also lowering its costs for publicity (22). By developing relationships between athletes and journalists, the ability to reach specific groups (i.e., local fans, newspaper subscribers, etc.) is enhanced via free media coverage.

Due to the types of stories that community newspapers can offer to specific publics on a local level, it is logical to develop positive relationships between the various publics involved. Scholars have noted some sports organizations are hesitant to engage in public relations, mainly because they do not understand how to use it properly (23). The assumption exists, however, that regardless of how effectively public relations is used, people will continue to support community sport teams regardless of what transpires (23). But that could change when scandals engulf sport teams or the quality of their performances diminishes over time. Therefore, it is especially important for sport organizations to maintain a positive relationship with local newspapers (52).

Newspaper Framing
Journalists select and organize facts and quotes before embedding them in storylines, a process commonly called framing (11). When writing articles, newspaper reporters emphasize specific points over others through inclusion, exclusion, repetition, and emphasis (44). Media framing helps determine the public’s understanding of issues (28). Moreover, once opinions are formed through framing, they often become more difficult to change (3, 62).

College Football “Paycheck” Games Between FBS and FCS Universities
In1973, NCAA football split into three divisions (I, II, and III), and Division I further divided into three subdivisions in 1978 (9). Division I-A was later re-named the FBS, while Division I-AA is now called FCS (9). FBS schools are allowed to have 85 players on football scholarship, whereas FCS programs can have 63. FBS athletic departments also have higher requirements for the minimum number of men’s and women’s intercollegiate sports they must offer, as well as the annual football home game attendance they must average to remain in the FBS.

Entering the 2012 season, FCS universities defeated ranked FBS teams just three times in 2,252 meetings dating back to the 19th century (34). The most famous was Appalachian State’s 34-32 victory in 2007 at then fifth-ranked Michigan. Whereas two of these upsets occurred since 2007, the average margin of victory by FBS teams was 25.9 points for all inter-division games from 2000 to 2011 (61).

NCAA rules previously limited FBS schools to counting no more than one win against a FCS team every four years toward post-season bowl eligibility. These rules made it counterproductive to play FBS opponents more than once every four seasons. However, due to the advent of 12-game regular-season schedules in 2006, the NCAA now allows one victory against an FCS program to count toward bowl eligibility each season, which has made these mismatches commonplace (61).
Playing a FCS school assures these prominent football programs revenues from an extra home game and adds a probable victory toward bowl eligibility. The often cash-strapped FCS athletics programs use such contests as a recruitment tool for prospective athletes. However, their primary impetus is financial, such as Georgia Southern getting $475,000 to play at Georgia in 2012 (63).

METHODS
Rationale and Research Questions
Although some national media have criticized major college football programs for scheduling FCS opponents, it is unclear how hometown newspapers – who rely heavily on access from the coaches and athletic directors who scheduled these games – frame such mismatches. Therefore, two broad research questions guided this exploratory study:
RQ1: How did hometown newspapers frame FBS-member games vs. FCS opponents?
RQ2: How did hometown newspapers frame the visiting FCS-member programs and their athletes?

Textual Analysis
A textual analysis was conducted of local newspaper stories about Big 12 Conference football programs during the week before and after their 2012 games against FCS opponents. Textual analyses are non-reactive tools that uncover both explicit and subtle underlying meanings within mass media content (33). They are both interpretative and subjective (64).

Sampling Selection
The goal of this project is to examine local newspaper framing of marquee college football programs’ games against teams from the FCS. The Big 12 Conference was selected from the FBS because its schools played the highest percentage (30%) of their non-conference games against FCS teams in 2012 of any conference in the Bowl Championship Series.

Despite its name, the Big 12 Conference had just 10 universities in 2012. Colorado and Nebraska left the Big 12 before the 2011 college football season and were not replaced. Missouri and Texas A&M also left in 2012, but they were replaced by Texas Christian and West Virginia.

Nine of the 10 schools in the Big 12 scheduled a single game against a FCS opponent in 2012, with Texas the exception. The Longhorns had a home game against New Mexico, arguably the worst FBS program. New Mexico was the only FBS team to win one or fewer games in each of the three preceding seasons. In an attempt to study hometown newspaper framing of all Big 12 football programs, Texas’ home date with New Mexico was included in the analysis.

Online versions of stories about these games written by the closest instate newspaper with a daily circulation of at least 30,000 according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations were examined, so long as articles mentioned the FCS opponents. Articles published from the Sunday before each game through the Sunday after each game were included. The story and any accompanying text were examined, including headlines, photo captions, and breakout boxes.

Table 1 shows each university, its location, and its hometown newspaper for this study. Only four of the 10 newspapers were located within the same city as the university: Austin American-Statesman (Texas), Fort Worth Star-Telegram (Texas Christian), Lubbock Avalanche-Journal (Texas Tech), Waco Tribune-Herald (Baylor).

Table 1: Newspapers Examined
Screen Shot 2014-03-10 at 11.40.00 AM

Coding Procedures, Data Analysis, and Trustworthiness
Working independently, three coders each read and wrote notes about how the FCS programs and these games were framed in the 79 stories published in the 10 newspapers. The authors then used the constant comparative method to decipher and define key concepts by unifying their supporting data (17). Specific themes related to how the FCS opponents were framed were given greater importance.

Through its design, this methodology did not aim to reproduce the primary themes from the overall articles. Rather, it sought to uncover the textual constructions related to how the FCS teams and these games were framed within narratives in the FBS schools’ local papers (56). This process is highly interpretive (8). However, our analytical methods were designed to ensure consistent data collection. Moreover, the analysis by multiple researchers (first working independently and then collectively) resulted in a dynamic and layered analytical framework.

RESULTS
Four primary themes emerged from the analysis. Direct passages from newspaper articles will be used to support and contrast these themes.

Successful or Not, These Are FCS Programs!
The most frequent theme was a constant reminder these opponents were from the FCS, and/or they competed in a lower-level division. Moreover, the articles often implied FCS opponents are incapable of competing with FBS schools. For example, The Oklahoman reporter Anthony Slater (53) began his post-game analysis by writing:

Oklahoma beat Florida A&M 69-13 on Saturday night in Norman. The Sooners are now 2-0.
It was over when…
OU scheduled an FCS team. The expected blowout was just that, with OU scoring 14 in the first quarter and never looking back (¶ 1-3).
That same sidebar noted “Florida A&M’s overmatched interior” and a “superior

OU defense,” while concluding that little could be gauged from Oklahoma’s overwhelming victory because “…it was an FCS opponent, so it’s tough to take much” away from such an outclassed opponent (53).

This subtle mockery of the caliber of FCS opponents was paramount in many of the post-game-analyses. For example, in recapping Iowa State’s 37-3 blowout win over Western Illinois, the Des Moines Register wrote, “The Cyclones success Saturday should be tempered by the fact Western Illinois was 2-9 last season and has not beaten an NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision opponent in nine years (31, ¶ 23).

This condescending tone toward FCS programs was also apparent in stories leading up to these games, with the hometown newspapers of FBS programs largely treating these contests as scrimmages. In projecting the effectiveness of the 2012 Kansas State offensive line before its season-opening 51-9 win over Missouri State, an article in the Topeka Capital-Journal surmised, “It’s hard to evaluate offensive-line play in one game – especially against a Division I-AA opponent” (12, ¶ 4).
Even when framing FCS opponents positively, articles still regularly noted these universities compete at a lower level than the FBS programs. For example, Baylor’s hometown paper, the Waco Tribune-Herald, wrote of Sam Houston State: “The Bearkats are a Football Championship Subdivision powerhouse that won 14 straight games before losing to North Dakota State in the national championship game last year, and Baylor knows it can’t take them lightly” (66, ¶ 4).

Further, some of the positive framing of FCS opponents could be viewed as half-hearted compliments, such as the Fort Worth Star-Telegram emphasizing that Grambling State – which Texas Christian defeated, 56-0 – was a superior opponent than fellow FCS member Savannah State, a school pummeled by Oklahoma State, 84-0, a week before. “Don’t hate the dominator either. This wasn’t Savannah State that TCU played. Grambling has a rich football legacy and won eight games a year ago” (29, ¶ 19-20).

However, for most FCS schools – many of which hoped for greater national media exposure from these games– being marginalized was still probably more desirable than being ignored entirely.

FCS Opponents Are Not Worthy of Coverage
This study only analyzed newspaper articles that specifically mentioned FCS opponents. Nevertheless, much content leading up to these games only mentioned the opponent in passing, with very few providing in-depth analyses of the FCS teams or their players. Most stories focused on FCS players who attended high school within the coverage area of the newspaper.

For example, in the only Waco Tribune-Herald article largely focusing on Baylor’s opponent, all four Sam Houston State players mentioned attended high school in the greater Waco area (66). Similarly, an advance of the Kansas-South Dakota State game in The Kansas City Star noted seven South Dakota State players attended high school in the Kansas City area, highlighting the relationship between former teammates at Olathe North High who would square off as opponents in this game (38).

Indicative of the lack of respect for the FCS programs was no player from a FCS school was quoted before these games unless that player was from an area high school. Further, no articles were published with a dateline from the town/city where the FCS university was located, indicating the papers likely never sent any reporter or even hired a freelance writer to interview athletes or coaches from the FCS schools prior to these games. The common narrative for local players from FCS programs was they were honored to play against an FBS school and coming home to do so. For example, a game preview before Iowa State hosted Western Illinois in the Des Moines Register quoted an area resident who suited up for the visitors:

I’ve been watching Iowa and Iowa State play my entire life,” said Nick Eversmeyer, an offensive lineman for the Leathernecks from Wapello. “I actually grew up a pretty big Hawkeye fan. So I’ve always kind of been toward that side. Just to play a team like (Iowa State) will be a pleasure. It’ll pretty much be a dream come true (31, ¶ 10-11).

The Waco Tribune-Herald was the only paper to publish a feature story on an FCS athlete. However, that player – Sam Houston State quarterback Brian Bell – was a graduate of Waco area high school, China Spring, where his father Mark was the head football coach. Moreover, Brian Bell is the younger brother of former Baylor star quarterback Shawn Bell. In other words, those two local ties were prominently mentioned in the feature and seemingly served as the impetus for it (39).

The few post-game articles focusing on FCS teams always tied back to their experiences playing road games against a FBS team. Following a 44-6 rout by hometown program Texas Tech, the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal noted how beneficial this game would be for the loser, Northwestern State. The headline was “Facing Tech will aid Demons down the road.”

Of course, the Big 12 schools easily won all nine games, outscoring the FCS programs by an average score of 51.3 to 9.2. Throw in Texas’ 45-0 win over New Mexico, and the hometown teams outscored their smaller opponents by a combined score of 507 to 83. Nine games were decided by a margin of at least 25 points, with Kansas’ 31-17 win over South Dakota State the lone exception. Therefore, it would have been misleading to frame these contests as competitive afterward.

Scant Criticism of Hometown Teams For Scheduling These Games
Even though these contests resulted in the blowouts projected by many national analysts, largely missing from the hometown newspapers’ coverage were criticisms of the FBS teams for scheduling them. The exception was a series of articles published in The Oklahoman before and after Oklahoma State’s 84-0 annihilation of hapless Savannah State. Jenni Carlson, who already had garnered a reputation for criticizing Oklahoma State, wrote the most critical of these commentaries. It was Carlson’s column about the Cowboys’ quarterback situation in 2007 that resulted in Oklahoma State coach Mike Gundy’s now infamous “I’m a man. I’m 40!” tirade directed at her during a press conference. It is No. 1 on ESPN SportsCenter‘s list of the top 10 all-time most heated exchanges between athletes/coaches and sports media.

In a notes column five days before the game, Carlson (7) included a ranking of Oklahoma State’s all-time “Five Worst Nonconference matchups,” placing the 2012 Savannah State squad atop the list. “The Cowboys will be the first major-college opponent that the Tigers have ever played,” she wrote. “It’s a dubious distinction considering the FCS program hasn’t had a winning season this century” (¶ 6-8).

In an article focusing on the performance of then-Oklahoma State freshman quarterback Wes Lunt, Carlson (4) wrote, “On a night that OSU throttled Savannah State 84-0 and left you wondering if it should be illegal for major-college teams to schedule lower-level teams” (¶ 5). She made her strongest condemnations in a column calling for the end of FBS-FCS matchups: “This madness needs to stop. The NCAA or the BCS or whoever’s in charge of college football these days should ban games against lower-division teams. End the insanity. Bring back the civility” (5, ¶ 5).

No newspaper was close to as negative about these contests as The Oklahoman. Interestingly, The Oklahoman was much less critical of Oklahoma hosting Florida A&M. Carlson (6) wrote that game was only scheduled because Oklahoma had a vacancy on its non-conference schedule after Texas Christian joined the Big 12, “so when OU got desperate, it went looking just about anywhere for an opponent. Its search ultimately landed in Tallahassee with Florida A&M” (¶ 3).

Let’s Let Others Do the Criticizing of These Games, Like Players and Coaches
Whereas reporters from hometown newspapers rarely directly criticized university athletics directors or football coaches for scheduling these matchups, several stories included negative quotes from hometown coaches and players after they were played. Fort Worth Star-Telegram writer Stefan Stevenson (58) quoted TCU Coach Gary Patterson downplaying any significance of his team’s 56-0 win over Grambling State. “They beat an FCS team,” Patterson said of his Frogs. “Simple as that” (¶ 6). Gina Mizell, an OSU beat writer for The Oklahoman, seemingly took advantage of one athlete’s verbal slip-up to form the lead of her game story after Oklahoma State’s 84-0 win over Savannah State: “Joseph Randle immediately caught himself after he said he wished Oklahoma State could have played a ‘real’ opponent in its first game, quickly following with a ‘no comment’ ” (35, ¶ 1).

However, most of these player/coach criticisms were subtle or indirect. For example, in discussing San Houston State outscoring Baylor 20-10 in the first half of an eventual 48-23 Baylor blowout, the Waco Tribune-Herald’s Will Parchman included a quote blaming Baylor’s mental acumen, instead of praising its opponent for its play:

The root of the trouble? Perhaps a pinch of overconfidence.
“We were saying (we’ve got to take them seriously), but the first drive we go out and get a three-and-out, we were like, ‘This is going to be an easy game.’ ” nickelback Ahmad Dixon said (40, ¶ 7-8).

DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to examine objectivity of hometown newspapers in framing college football “paycheck” games. Results suggest Big 12 hometown newspapers generally failed to perform their watchdog function by not criticizing the hometown FBS schools for scheduling patsies from the FCS. Others found similar failures of sports journalists to perform this role (e.g., 2, 43). Only The Oklahoman criticized a university, Oklahoma State, before the game for such scheduling, and the newspaper was not located in the same city as the university. But the newspaper did not criticize a university located much closer, Oklahoma, for doing the same thing in a pinch.

Indeed, coverage of FBS programs from smaller newspapers located in the same city as the universities was generally less critical than content published in larger newspapers located further from the college towns. This type of “homer journalism” has long been common in media sports departments (47).

As a result of sports journalists failing to perform their watchdog role, the FBS schools in the Big 12 have little incentive to change such scheduling because they are mainly getting a free ride from these newspapers. These teams nearly always get their extra win over FCS schools to pad their record and enhance their chances for a bowl game. But the readers and fans must endure a boring, lopsided game at high ticket prices, unless the tickets do not sell well and they can get a discount.

The main criticism of these games was indirect and in post-game content, providing further evidence of the local newspapers failing to perform their watchdog role. Moreover, the few critiques mainly appeared in game stories instead of commentaries. Such indirect criticism suggests the sports reporters are heavily concerned about their future access to the teams and/or are concerned with upsetting readers who do not want to read anything negative on the local team.

The hometown papers chiefly framed FCS programs as athletically inferior, particularly through the use of post-game quotes. Tuchman (62) argued reporters use quotes to frame stories as they desire, while claiming they distance themselves from events and people they cover. Even when writing about a historically successful FCS team like Grambling or one that won 14 consecutive games the previous season in Sam Houston State, the hometown FBS newspapers still trivialized FCS successes as coming in a lower division and/or versus lesser competition.

Further, the hometown newspapers in the Big 12 wrote few advances about FCS teams, indicating they felt the other team was unworthy of such coverage. When they did write such stories, they primarily focused on the local angle of players who attended high school in the area. The only advance feature story written about an FCS athlete was about a former local prep star. Thus, readers were largely deprived of in-depth coverage of these teams.

In addition, the lack of datelines from FCS cities indicated the hometown newspapers did not send their reporters there to cover the opposing team. They are apparently unwilling to expend precious resources to do so. Consequently, readers usually received one-sided coverage of the home team.

CONCLUSION
The backlash against scheduling these types of contests by national media is already having effects. In early 2013 athletic directors in the Big Ten agreed to stop scheduling games against FCS opponents (41). Around the same time, Big 12 Conference Commissioner Bob Bowlsby opposed passing legislation to prohibit these games, but said he would discourage his league’s schools from scheduling them. Bowlsby said these games do not make Big 12 teams better and typically resulted in blowouts (24).

Our study showed scheduling of these games was generally not framed negatively by hometown newspapers of the Big 12 schools. Results from this exploratory study, however, cannot be generalized for games with FCS schools beyond Big 12 games during this year. Future research can examine these games over a longer period of time and with hometown newspapers in other conferences.

APPLICATIONS IN SPORT
It is unknown how the implementation of a four-team college football playoff in 2014 will affect scheduling philosophies of the most powerful programs, such as Big 12 Conference members Oklahoma and Texas. Strength of schedule is supposed to be considered when selecting teams. However, several high-profile coaches, such as Oklahoma’s Bob Stoops, have already expressed skepticism. Stoops pointed out strength of schedule was also supposed to be a key criteria in BCS bowl game selections, but its track record shows win-loss records generally were given more credence, encouraging powerful teams to schedule easy non-conference teams (57).

Future research must examine how FCS teams are framed after major college football implements a playoff system for the first time in its history, starting in 2014. Moreover, scholars can analyze how local and national media frame the powerful and affluent FBS programs that continue to schedule outmatched FCS opponents.

Regardless, hometown media framing was evident in these newspapers, showing that “homer” journalism remains commonplace in at least the smaller- and mid-sized daily newspapers that cover major college football programs in Big 12 conference areas.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
None

 

REFERENCES

1. Alterman, E. (2008, March 31). Out of print: The death and life of the American
newspaper. The New Yorker online version. Retrieved from http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/03/31/080331fa_fact_alterman

2. Banagan, R. (2011). The decision, a case study: LeBron James, ESPN and
questions about US sports journalism losing its way. Media International Australia, Incorporating Culture & Policy, 140, 157-167.

3. Bronstein, C. (2005). Representing the third wave: Mainstream print media framing of
a new feminist movement. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 82(4), 783-803.

4. Carlson, J. (2012a, September 1). Oklahoma State football: After blowout, it’s obvious
Wes Lunt is the right guy for the job. The Oklahoman online edition. Retrieved from http://newsok.com/oklahoma-state-football-after-blowout-its-obvious-wes-lunt-is-the-right-guy-for-the-job/article/3706484

5. Carlson, J. (2012b, September 3). Oklahoma State’s 84-point victory should set the
stage for a new scheduling rule. The Oklahoman online edition. Retrieved from http://newsok.com/oklahoma-states-84-point-victory-should-set-the-stage-for-a-new-scheduling-rule/article/3706702

6. Carlson, J. (2012c, August 27). OU chose to play Florida A&M after losing TCU as a
non-conference opponent. The Oklahoman online edition. Retrieved from http://newsok.com/jenni-carlson-ou-chose-to-play-florida-am-after-losing-tcu-as-a-non-conference-opponent/article/3707718

7. Carlson, J. (2012d, August 27). Savannah State coach Steve Davenport talks about
Oklahoma State. The Oklahoman online edition. Retrieved from http://newsok.com/savannah-state-coach-steve-davenport-talks-about-oklahoma-state/article/3704596

8. Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

9. Crowley, J. (2006). Dividing The House. In the arena: The NCAA’s first century 
digital edition. Retrieved from http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/AB06.pdf

10. Demers, D.P. (1993). Effects of corporate structure on autonomy of top editors at
U.S. dailies. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 70(4), 499-508.

11. Devitt, J. (2002). Framing gender on the campaign trail: Female gubernatorial
candidates and the press. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 79(2), 445-463.

12. Dodd, R. (2012, September 1). KU vs. South Dakota State: Three things to watch.
The Kansas City Star online edition. Retrieved from http://www.kansascity.com/2012/09/01/3791641/ku-vs-south-dakota-state-three.html

13. Doyle, G. (2012, September 7). Pokes, ‘Noles ought to be ashamed of sketchy
scheduling of Savannah State. CBSSports.com. Retrieved from http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/20088828/pokes-noles-others-ought-to-be-ashamed-of-sketchy-scheduling

14. Duncan, M.C. (2006). Gender warriors in sport: Women and the media. In A.A.
Raney & J. Bryant (Eds.), Handbook of sports and media (pp. 231-252). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

15. Gerbner, G., & Gross, L. (1976). Living with television: The violence profile. Journal 
of Communication, 26(2), 172-199.

16. Gisondi, J. (2010). Field guide to covering sports. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

17. Glasser, B.G., & Strauss, F. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.

18. Hambrick, M. (2012). Six degrees of information: Using social network analysis to
explore the spread of information within sport social networks. International Journal of Sport Communication, 5(1), 16-34.

19. Hardin, M. (2005). Survey finds boosterism, freebies remain problems for newspaper
sports departments. Newspaper Research Journal, 26(1), 66-72.

20. Hardin, M., & Shain, S. (2005). Strength in numbers? The experiences and attitudes
of women in sports media careers. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly,

82(4), 804-819.

21. Hardin, M., & Zhong, B. (2010). Sports reporters’ attitudes about ethics vary based
on beat. Newspaper Research Journal, 31(2), 6-19.

22. Hopwood, M.K. (2007). The sports integrated marketing communications mix. In J. Beech & S. Chadwick (Eds.) The Marketing of Sport. London: Prentice Hall.

23. Hopwood, M.K. (2010). Bringing public relations and communication studies to
sport. In M. Hopwood, P. Kitchin, & J. Skinner (Eds.), Sports Public Relations and Communication (pp. 1-11). Elsevier: New York.

24. Hoover, J. (2013, February 21). Bowlsby’s against FCS blowouts, but doesn’t want to
mandate it in Big 12. Tulsa World online edition. Retrieved from http://www.tulsaworld.com/blogs/sportspost.aspx?Bowlsbys_against_FCS_blowouts_but_doesnt_want_to_mandate_it_in_Big_12/54-19159

25. Johnson, K. (2012, October 30). No surprises: Print readership declines, online
audience grows. Sacramento Business Journal online. Retrieved from http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2012/10/30/newspaper-audience-report-circulation.html

26. Kian, E.M., Clavio, G., Vincent, J., & Shaw, S.D. (2011). Homophobic and sexist yet
uncontested: Examining football fan postings on Internet message boards. Journal of Homosexuality, 58(5), 680-99.

27. Kian, E.M., & Zimmerman, M.H. (2012). The medium of the future: Top sports
writers discuss transitioning from newspapers to online journalism. International Journal of Sport Communication, 5(3), 285-304.

28. Kuypers, J.A. (2002). Press bias and politics: How the media frame controversial 
issues. Westport, CT: Praeger.

29. Leberton, G. (2012, September 9). For Patterson’s Horned Frogs, it was perfect star.

Fort Worth Star-Telegram online edition. Retrieved from http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/09/09/4242903/for-pattersons-frogs-it-was-perfect.html

30. Logue, A. (2012a, September 16). Iowa State football: Cyclones breeze past Western
Illinois 37-3. Des Moines Register online edition. Retrieved from http://www.desmoinesregister.com/

31. Logue, A. (2012b, September 9). Iowa State football: Cyclones seeking comfort zone

after uneven big game performance. Des Moines Register online edition. Retrieved from http://www.desmoinesregister.com/

32. McChesney, R.W. (1989). Media made sport: A history of sports coverage in the U.S.
In L.A. Wenner (Ed.), Media, Sports, & Society (pp. 49–69). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

33. McKee, A. (2001). A beginner’s guide to textual analysis. Metro, 127/128, 138-14.

34. McKillop, A. (2012, August 20). Correcting history: The first time an FCS (I-AA)
team defeated a ranked FBS (I-A) team. Football Geography online edition. Retrieved from http://www.footballgeography.com/?p=2171

35. Mizell, G. (2012, September 2). Oklahoma State football: Savannah State game
didn’t give OSU first-teamers much preparation. The Oklahoman online edition. Retrieved from http://newsok.com/oklahoma-state-football-savannah-state-game-didnt-give-osu-first-teamers-much-preparation/article/3706542

36. Northington, E.K. (1993). Split allegiance: Small-town newspaper community
involvement. Journalism of Mass Media Ethics, 7(4), 220-232.

37. Oates, T.P., & Pauly, J. (2007). Sports journalism as moral and ethical discourse.
Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 22(4), 332-347.

38. Palmer, T. (2012, August 30). Olathe North’s Doug Peete relishes chance to beat KU:
Several players on South Dakota State are from the Kansas City area. The Kansas City Star online edition. Retrieved from http://www.kansascity.com/2012/08/29/3786649/olathe-norths-doug-peete-relishes.html

39.Parchman, W. (2012a, September 14). Ex-China Spring QB Bell back home, football
in hand. Waco Tribune-Herald online edition. Retrieved from http://www.wacotrib.com/sports/baylor/169727246.html

40. Parchman, W. (2012b, September 16). 2nd-half adjustments save Baylor against Sam
Houston. Retrieved from http://www.wacotrib.com/sports/baylor/169937956.html

41. Potrykus, J. (2013, February 12). Barry Alvarez: Big Ten agrees no more FCS
opponents. Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel online edition. Retrieved from http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/190943281.html

42. Reader, B. (2006). Difference that matter: Ethical difference at large and small
newspapers. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 83(4), 1-10.

43. Reinardy, S. (2005). No cheering in the press box: A study of intergroup bias and 
sports writers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, New York City. Retrieved from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p13810_index.html

44. Rohlinger, D.A. (2002). Framing the abortion debate: Organizational resources, media strategies, and movement-countermovement dynamics. The Sociological Quarterly, 43(4), 479-507.

45. Rouner, D., Slater, M., Long, M., & Stapel, L (2009). The relationship between
editorial and advertising content about tobacco and alcohol in United States newspapers: An exploratory study. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 86(1), 103-118.

46. Rowe, D. (2007). Sports journalism: Still the ‘toy department’ of the news media.
Journalism, 8(4), 385-405.

47. Salwen, M., & Garrison, B. (1998). Finding their place in journalism: Newspaper
sports journalists’ professional ‘problems’. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 22(1), 88-102.

48. Sander, L. (2011, June 15). 22 Elite college sports programs turned a profit in 2010,
but gaps remain, NCAA reports says. The Chronicle of Higher of Education online. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/22-Elite-College-Sports/127921/

49. Sanderson, J. (2011). To tweet or not to tweet…: Exploring Division I athletic
department social media policies. International Journal of Sport Communication, 4(4), 492-513.

50. Schudson, M. (2001). The objectivity norm in American journalism. Journalism, 
2(2), 149-170.

51. Schultz-Jorgensen, S. (2005). The world’s best advertising agency: The sports press’ 
International Sports Press Survey 2005. Copenhagen: House of Monday Morning: Play the Game. Retrieved from http://playthegame.org/upload/Sport_Press_Survey_English.pdf

52. Sheffer, M.L., & Schultz, B. (2010). Paradigm shift or passing fad? Twitter and sports
journalism. International Journal of Sport Communication, 3(4), 472-484.

53. Slater, A. (2012, September 8). Rapid reaction: A quick look at OU’s domination of
Florida A&M. The Oklahoman online edition. Retrieved from http://blog.newsok.com/ou/2012/09/08/rapid-reaction-a-quick-look-at-ous-domination-of-florida-am/

54. Smith, C. (2012, December 19). College football’s most valuable teams: Texas
Longhorns on top, Notre Dame falls. Forbes online edition. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2012/12/19/college-footballs-most-valuable-teams-texas-longhorns-still-on-top/

55. Soley, L.C., & Craig, R.L (1992). Advertising pressures on newspapers: A survey.
Journal of Advertising, 21(4), 499-508.

56. Sparkes, A. (1992). Writing and the textual construction of realities: Some challenges

for alternative paradigms research in physical education. In A. Sparkes (Ed.), Research in physical education and sport: Exploring alternative visions (pp. 271-297).

57. Staples, A. (2013, May 14). Analyzing 10 years of committee decisions had playoff
been in pace. Sports Illustrated online. Retrieved from http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130514/playoff-selection-committee/

58. Stevenson, S. (2012, September 9). TCU guards against overconfidence after opening
blowout. Fort Worth Star-Telegram online edition. Retrieved from http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/09/09/4244494/tcu-guards-against-overconfidence.html

59. Storch, G. (2010, February 26). The pros and cons of newspapers partnering with
‘citizen’ journalism networks. The Online Journalism Review. Retrieved from http://www.ojr.org/ojr/people/gstorch/201002/1826/

60. Thamel, P. (2012, November 19). Maryland to leave ACC for Big Ten in a move
driven by cable revenue. Sports Illustrated online. Retrieved from http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/pete_thamel/11/19/maryland-big-ten-realignment/index.html

61. Temple, J. (2012, August 30). Money makes FCS-FBS mismatches go round.
FoxSportsWisconsin.com. Retrieved from http://www.foxsportswisconsin.com/08/30/12/Money-makes-FCS-FBS-mismatches-go-round/landing_badgers.html?blockID=782187

62. Tuchman, G. (1978b). Making news: A study in the construction of reality. New
York: Free Press.

63. Tucker, T. (2012, September 13). Money game: UGA-Florida Atlantic pays off for
both sides. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution online. Retrieved from http://blogs.ajc.com/uga-sports-blog/2012/09/13/money-game-uga-florida-atlantic-game-pays-off-for-both-sides/

64. Vincent, J., & Crossman, J. (2008). Champions, a celebrity crossover, and a
capitulator: The construction of gender in broadsheet newspapers’ narratives about selected competitors during “The Championships.” International Journal of Sport Communication, 1(1), 78-102.

65. Wenner, L.A. (1989). Media, sports and society: The research agenda. In L.A.
Wenner (Ed.), Media, Sports and Society (pp. 13-48). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 

66. Werner, J. (2012, September 11). Dixon, Baylor players anxious, ready to test Sam
Houston St. Waco Tribune-Herald online edition. Retrieved from http://www.wacotrib.com/sports/baylor/169268766.html

67. West Virginia Press Association (2012). 2012 West Virginia Press Association 
newspaper directory online edition. Retrieved from http://www.wvpress.org/images/Directory/2012/2012Directory_small_r.pdf

2019-10-28T14:01:49-05:00March 10th, 2014|Contemporary Sports Issues, General|Comments Off on Watchdogs of the Fourth Estate or Homer Journalists? Newspaper Coverage of Local BCS College Football Programs
Go to Top