Music in Sport and Exercise : An Update on Research and Application

Abstract

In spring 1999, almost a decade ago, the first author published in The Sport Journal an article titled “Music in Sport and Exercise: Theory and Practice.” The present article’s origins are in that earlier work and the first author’s research while a master’s student at the United States Sports Academy in 1991–92. To a greater degree than in the original 1999 article, this article focuses on the applied aspects of music in sport and exercise. Moreover, it highlights some new research trends emanating not only from our own publications, but also from the work of other prominent researchers in the field. The content is oriented primarily towards the needs of athletes and coaches.

(more…)

2016-10-20T13:47:06-05:00July 7th, 2008|Sports Exercise Science, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology|Comments Off on Music in Sport and Exercise : An Update on Research and Application

Factors Affecting Attendance at Bowl Games During the BCS Era

Abstract

Six independent variables combined in a formula that explains 82.2 percent of the variance in attendance (r2 = .822) in all 271 college football bowl games that have been played in the past 10 years. This is despite the fact that during a recent explosion in new bowl games and the creation of the Bowl Championship Series (BCS), attendance to these traditional post-season football exhibitions has varied from 5,494 for the 2004 Silicon Valley Football Classic to 94,392 for the 2001 Rose Bowl. These six variables, out of 11 that were tested, each showed a relationship to attendance that was statistically significant at the 0.01 alpha level (p > 0.01). They include the seating capacity of the stadium (Stadium), the average home game attendance of the participating teams (AHAtt), the age of each bowl game (Age), the winning percentages of the participating teams (Wpct.), the travel distance between the representative institutions and the sites of the bowl games (Distance) and the number of days that elapsed between the participating teams’ final regular season or conference championship game and the bowl game itself (Notice). When the researcher studied only the bowls that were at least six years of age (n = 194), where the attendance track record of the individual bowls could be used as an independent variable, a formula of five independent variables that explain 91 percent of the variance (r2d = .910) was developed. All five variables had a relationship with attendance that was statistically significant at the 0.01 alpha level (p > 0.01). The formula included the attendance average of each bowl game over the previous five years (FiveAtt), Stadium, Distance, Wpct and AHAtt.

Introduction

It would be difficult to find a decade in the 106-year history of college football bowl games in which more dramatic changes have occurred in the major college football postseason. The number of bowl games has increased more than 50 percent from 22 in 1998 to 34 in 2008. The Bowl Championship Series (BCS) has dramatically increased revenues for the elite-level bowl games, and payouts for their participants. The growth of conference championship games and other games being played on the first Saturday in December has decreased the amount of notice academic institutions and fans have in finding out which bowl games their teams will be participating.

Attendance has also taken on an added importance because the growth in number of non-BCS bowl games has created a “clutter” of bowl games on television, creating a potential for a saturated market.

While the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) does not have an official national championship event for its Division One Football Bowl Subdivision (D1-FBS), the fact that there has been only one bowl game a year that has had an effect on the national championship (in eight out of the past 10 years) makes new marketing approaches all the more necessary for even more bowl games. Bowls such as the Cotton Bowl, which helped determine the national champion in 1978 and hosted the No. 2-ranked team in 1984; the Holiday Bowl, which hosted the No. 1-ranked team in 1984; and the Citrus Bowl (now the Capital One Bowl), which hosted the United Press International’s (UPI) recognized national champion in 1991; were left out of the BCS when it formed in 1998.

The surge in bowl certification has also led to an increasing number of non-traditional bowl teams participating in bowl games. These teams have little or no track record of bowl attendance and fans that are not accustomed to making postseason bowl travel plans. In some cases, football programs that either did not even exist or play at the NCAA Division 1-A level 10 years before the BCS started have participated in non-BCS bowl games during the BCS era.

These facts all indicate a need to research bowl attendance data. The increase in the number of bowls means that 271 such games have been played during the BCS era, enough to create a valid sample for research purposes.

Review of Literature

Many studies have been conducted regarding spectator attitudes and preferences in sporting events, although most have been based on survey data as opposed to fan behavior. A need to study spectator attitudes and preferences based on behavior instead of surveys arises not only from the practicality of obtaining this data (the NCAA lists attendance figures for all bowl games in a record book stored in a PDF file on its website) but also because a ticket to a sporting event differs from other products and the decision to attend an athletic event or support its participants differs from other types of consumer decisions. These decisions are emotionally-based (Hardy et al, 2003), so depending on the rational mind in a survey and the limited number of responses that can be obtained through survey data creates some disadvantages compared to data based on spectator behavior.

Definition of Terms

Bowl Championship Series (BCS)
A partnership involving the Rose Bowl, FedEx Orange Bowl, Tostitos Fiesta Bowl, Allstate Sugar Bowl, Notre Dame and six collegiate athletic conferences (ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, PAC 10 and Southeastern) to produce an unofficial national championship game for D1-FBS college football and provide the best possible matchups in four major bowl games.
Bowl Games
Special exhibition, All-Star or championship games played at the end of the regular football season. For the purpose of this study, the term will be used in reference to games played after the regular season by D1-FBS teams. As of the end of the 2007 season, there are 32 such games played each year.
National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)
The largest governing body of intercollegiate athletics in the United States.
NCAA Division One
The most competitive level of athletics in the NCAA, with a varying number of schools that usually exceeds 300.
NCAA Division One Football Bowl Subdivision (D1-FBS)
A body of Division One college football teams that play a season culminating in bowl games for 64 of its members. The membership number varies, but usually exceeds 100.

Methodology

Using bowl game attendance as the dependent variable, the researcher analyzed 11 independent variables that theoretically would have an effect on the number of people who attended a bowl game. For the second formula, the researcher analyzed the same 11 independent variables plus one additional independent variable. The researcher used stepwise linear regression analysis as a research method and Statistical Package of Social Science (SPSS) 16.0 as the instrument.

Selection of Subjects

The researcher collected data from all 271 bowls that took place during the BCS era, from December of 1998 to January of 2008. For the second formula, the researcher used data from only those bowl games that were at least six years old at the time they were played (n = 199).

Variables

Dependent

Attendance: The number of spectators who attended each individual bowl game, as reported in the NCAA Football Record Book (NCAA.com, see Table 1).

Table 1
Bowl Attendance

Bowl Attendance
1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08
Alamo 60780 65380 60028 65232 50690 56226 65265 62000 65875 66166
Aloha 46451 40974 24397 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Armed Forces N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 38028 27902 33505 32412 40975
BCS N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 74628 79651
Capital One 63584 62011 66928 59693 66334 64565 70229 57221 60774 69748
Champs Sports N/A N/A N/A 28562 21689 26482 28237 31470 40168 46554
Chick-fil-A 72876 73315 73614 71827 68330 75125 69332 65620 75406 74413
Cotton 72611 72723 63465 72955 70817 73928 75704 74222 66777 73114
Emerald N/A N/A N/A N/A 25966 25621 30653 25742 40331 32517
Fiesta 80470 71526 75428 74118 77502 73425 73519 76196 73719 70016
Gator 70791 43416 68741 72202 73491 78892 70112 63780 67704 60243
GMAC N/A 34200 40300 40139 40646 40620 40160 35422 38751 36932
Hawaii N/A N/A N/A N/A 31535 29005 39662 26254 43435 30467
Holiday 65354 57118 63278 60548 58717 61102 66222 65416 62395 64020
Houston N/A N/A 33899 53480 44687 51068 27235 37286 N/A N/A
Humanitarian 19664 29283 26203 23472 30446 23118 28516 30493 28652 27062
Independence 46862 49873 36974 45627 46096 49625 43000 41332 45054 47043
Insight 36147 35762 41813 40028 40533 42364 45917 43536 48391 48892
International N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 26717 31455
Las Vegas 21429 28227 29113 30894 30324 25437 29062 40053 44615 40712
Liberty 52192 54866 58302 58968 55207 55989 58355 54894 56103 63816
Meinecke N/A N/A N/A N/A 73535 51236 73238 57937 52303 53126
MicronPC.com 44387 31089 28359 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Motor City 32206 44863 52911 44164 51872 51826 52552 50616 54113 60624
Music City 41248 59221 47119 46125 39183 55109 66089 40519 68024 68681
New Mexico N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 34111 30467
New Orleans N/A N/A N/A 27004 19024 25184 27253 18338 24791 25146
Oahu 46451 40974 24187 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Orange 67919 70461 76835 73640 75971 76739 77912 77773 74470 74111
Outback 66005 54059 65229 66249 65101 65372 62414 65881 65601 65601
Papajohns.com N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 32023 35258
Poinsettia N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 36842 29709 39129
Rose 93872 93731 94392 93781 86848 93849 93468 93986 93852 93923
Seattle N/A N/A N/A 30144 38241 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Silicon Valley N/A N/A 26542 30456 10132 20126 5494 N/A N/A N/A
Sugar 76503 79280 64407 77688 74269 79342 77349 74458 77781 74383
Sun 46612 48757 49093 47812 48917 49894 51288 50426 48732 49867
Texas N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 52210 62097

Source: NCAA
N/A (not applicable) means the bowl game did not exist during the indicated season.

Independent

For the whole group (n = 271)

Age of the bowl (Age): The number of times the bowl game has been played, including the year in question (Table 2). In 2006, the BCS stopped rotating its four bowls as being designated championship games and instead added a fifth bowl, the BCS Championship, on Jan. 8 each year to be hosted by one of the four BCS bowl committees. Two such games have been played during the period of this study, but the age of the BCS title game (1 and 2) would not be reflected in attendance. So in these particular games, the age of the host committee’s bowl game is also used as the age of the BCS Championship game. For example, the 2007 BCS title game was the first one of its kind, but since it was hosted by the Fiesta Bowl Committee, it is listed in this study as being the same age as the Fiesta Bowl (35).

Table 2
Age of the Bowls

Current Bowls Age (in 2007-’08) Discontinued Bowls Final Year Age (in final year)
Rose 106 Aloha 2000-’01 19
Orange 73 Houston 2005-’06 6
Sugar 73 Micron PC.com 2000-’01 10
Cotton 71 Silicon Valley 2004-’05 5
Sun 71 Oahu 2000-’01 3
Gator 61 Seattle 2002-’03 2
Capital One 60
Liberty 48
Chick-fil-A 39
Fiesta 36
Indy 31
Holiday 29
Outback 21
Insight 18
Champs Sports 17
Vegas 15
Alamo 14
Human 11
Motor 11
Music 10
GMAC 9
New O 7
Emerald 6
Hawaii 6
Meinecke Car Care 6
Armed 5
Poinsettia 3
BCS Championship* 2 (35 and 73 in the study)
International 2
New Mexico 2
Papajohns.com 2
Texas 2

*For the purpose of this study, the age of each BCS Championship game will be recorded as the same age as the BCS bowl hosting the event.

Average Home Attendance (AHAtt): The average number of spectators that attended the regular-season home games of the participating teams. The average home attendance for each team is averaged together for this variable (Table 3).

Table 3
Average Home Attendance

Bowl Average Home Attendance (averaged between two participating teams)
1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08
Alamo 47643.0 84813.0 55688.0 55383.0 63621.0 75292.0 75840.5 94200.0 79545.0 95562.0
Aloha 45336.0 38311.5 44969.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Armed Forces N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 32126.5 23594.0 29364.5 32321.5 63136.0
BCS N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 97752.5 98864.5
Capital One 81782.5 61890.5 96364.0 108375.5 95091.0 75327.5 80803.0 83356.0 77631.5 100326.0
Champs Sports N/A N/A N/A 49084.5 60325.5 46012.0 41942.5 64320.5 52425.0 56265.0
Chick-fil-A 64689.0 58061.5 65243.0 69016.0 76478.0 90558.5 73771.5 68445.0 79489.5 82717.0
Cotton 57412.5 67272.5 78927.5 68044.5 84680.0 50690.5 90571.0 65995.0 85053.5 64969.5
Emerald N/A N/A N/A N/A 51317.5 36617.5 34149.5 46571.5 72743.5 46318.5
Fiesta 93702.0 92284.0 56975.5 46700.5 86513.5 75990.0 42856.0 92906.0 57507.0 72629.0
Gator 60641.5 42517.0 65618.5 66101.5 65147.5 51720.5 69693.0 53058.0 54695.0 55867.5
GMAC N/A 34163.0 30571.5 31976.5 32131.0 32589.5 29299.0 34858.0 22859.0 20309.5
Hawaii N/A N/A N/A N/A 35655.5 31299.0 28703.5 21769.0 45575.5 35937.5
Holiday 62051.0 59820.5 63654.5 77765.5 47513.0 58335.0 58421.0 71382.5 70151.5 74009.5
Houston N/A N/A 39252.5 55841.5 35099.5 39772.0 44552.0 38979.5 N/A N/A
Humanitarian 18925.0 30684.5 35604.0 50292.5 35955.0 37497.0 50635.5 34770.5 29318.0 43285.5
Independence 44674.0 60746.5 60268.5 63742.0 67509.5 57652.5 28630.0 66615.5 66636.0 71413.5
Insight 55735.5 46736.0 41444.0 44840.0 40431.5 50168.0 58564.5 47170.5 51540.5 38514.0
International N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 19499.0 28374.0
Las Vegas 15165.8 16350.0 18483.0 22080.2 26235.4 27997.4 28799.0 28966.0 31154.0 33898.2
Liberty 45323.0 26705.5 33633.0 50013.5 29137.0 31889.5 35515.0 31066.5 48770.0 46657.0
Meinecke N/A N/A N/A N/A 54330.5 59810.5 47824.0 45895.0 33275.0 35400.0
MicronPC.com 51571.5 45804.0 47050.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Motor City 32233.5 46929.5 24725.0 26924.0 31865.9 24823.5 31664.5 25442.0 21800.0 39048.5
Music City 60857.5 57248.5 50019.5 64580.0 51268.5 81844.5 64721.5 54909.0 70161.0 73645.5
New Mexico N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 23743.5 23380.0
New Orleans N/A N/A N/A 21434.5 21665.5 28681.0 22074.0 23121.5 17785.0 22705.5
Oahu 58505.0 35576.0 70379.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Orange 66644.0 97115.5 77953.0 64498.5 64300.0 70642.0 84880.5 93791.5 36998.5 56508.5
Outback 77134.5 74794.0 89830.5 93073.0 97880.5 77987.5 87557.0 80495.5 106678.0 92832.5
Papajohns.com N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 33695.0 28483.5
Poinsettia N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 31180.0 26348.5 38605.0
Rose 75568.5 63909.5 67897.0 62468.5 56617.5 94361.0 97059.5 87072.5 100753.0 71174.0
Seattle N/A N/A N/A 46609.5 39716.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Silicon Valley N/A N/A 41500.5 58259.0 41144.7 47619.5 24140.0 N/A N/A N/A
Sugar 75897.5 65622.0 71841.5 71843.5 84143.0 87088.0 74100.0 74494.0 86503.5 68130.0
Sun 44040.0 44689.0 72995.5 44611.5 63932.5 50924.5 63095.0 48372.5 48374.0 56007.5
Texas N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 43903.0 25486.5

Attendance Per Mile (APM): The Average Home Attendance of each team, divided by the number of miles between the bowl’s host city and the city where each academic institution is located, averaged together. An example is in Figure A.

2007 Insight Bowl: Oklahoma State vs. Indiana

Distance from Stillwater, Okla. (home of Oklahoma State University.) to Phoenix, Ariz. (site of the bowl) = 1085.64 miles

Oklahoma State’s Average Home Attendance = 40,024

Oklahoma State’s APM = 40,024/1085.65 = 36.87

Distance from Bloomington, Ind. (home of Indiana University) to Phoenix = 1,747 miles

Indiana’s Average Home Attendance = 37,004

Indiana’s APM = 21.18

2007 Insight Bowl’s APM = (36.87+21.18)/2 = 29.03

Figure A. Example of Attendance Per Mile (APM) Variable.

BCS Status (BCS): The variable that separates BCS bowls from non-BCS bowls, under the hypothesis that a BCS bowl will normally draw higher attendance. The value of “1” is assigned to BCS bowls while “0” is assigned to non-BCS bowls.

Championship Status (CStatus) — The status of a game as it pertains to the unofficial national championship of D1-FBS football. For this study, the BCS-designated national championship game is given a value of “1” and all other bowl games a value of “0” (Table 4).

Table 4
BCS Bowls

Bowl Year Winning Team in Bold, Championship Games in Italics
BCS 2006-’07 Florida Ohio State
BCS 2007-’08 LSU Ohio State
Fiesta 1998-’99 Tennessee Florida State
Fiesta 1999-’00 Nebraska Tennessee
Fiesta 2000-’01 Oregon State Notre Dame
Fiesta 2001-’02 Oregon Colorado
Fiesta 2002-’03 Ohio State Miami
Fiesta 2003-’04 Ohio State Kansas State
Fiesta 2004-’05 Utah Pittsburgh
Fiesta 2005-’06 Ohio State Notre Dame
Fiesta 2006-’07 Boise State Oklahoma
Fiesta 2007-’08 Oklahoma West Virginia
Orange 1998-’99 Florida Syracuse
Orange 1999-’00 Michigan Alabama
Orange 2000-’01 Oklahoma Florida State
Orange 2001-’02 Florida Maryland
Orange 2002-’03 USC Iowa
Orange 2003-’04 Miami Florida State
Orange 2004-’05 USC Oklahoma
Orange 2005-’06 Penn State Florida State
Orange 2006-’07 Louisville Wake Forest
Orange 2007-’08 Virginia Tech Kansas
Rose 1998-’99 Wisconsin UCLA
Rose 1999-’00 Wisconsin Stanford
Rose 2000-’01 Washington Purdue
Rose 2001-’02 Miami Nebraska
Rose 2002-’03 Oklahoma Washington State
Rose 2003-’04 USC Michigan
Rose 2004-’05 Texas Michigan
Rose 2005-’06 Texas USC
Rose 2006-’07 USC Michigan
Rose 2007-’08 USC Illinois
Sugar 1998-’99 Ohio State Texas A&M
Sugar 1999-’00 Florida State Virginia Tech
Sugar 2000-’01 Miami Florida
Sugar 2001-’02 LSU Illinois
Sugar 2002-’03 Georgia Florida State
Sugar 2003-’04 LSU Oklahoma
Sugar 2004-’05 Auburn Virginia Tech
Sugar 2005-’06 West Virginia Georgia
Sugar 2006-’07 LSU Notre Dame
Sugar 2007-’08 Georgia Hawaii

Distance (Distance): The number of miles between the bowl’s host city and the city where each participating team is located (Table 5). The travel distance of each team is averaged out for this variable. The distances were found through the internet using Mapquest.com for mainland bowls and Ask.com for the Aloha, O’ahu and Hawaii bowls.

Table 5
Distance

Bowl Mean of Two Teams’ Travel Distances in Miles
1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08
Alamo 982.46 912.34 1,081.26 765.05 1,147.07 1,167.58 921.44 1,177.24 600.90 912.34
Aloha 2,930.00 3,807.00 4,000.50 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Armed Forces N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 849.07 1,003.34 388.53 774.47 1,205.70
BCS Title Game N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,982.42 495.28
Capital One 1,117.34 631.92 823.29 901.23 732.99 746.85 975.12 863.40 1,196.24 631.92
Champs Sports N/A N/A N/A 783.90 985.59 937.58 828.90 1,198.63 952.28 1,264.36
Chick-fil-A 292.31 205.01 263.38 244.75 433.94 169.08 501.81 596.95 243.41 116.10
Cotton 375.48 264.93 669.21 261.56 319.94 401.79 513.02 466.01 671.07 468.80
Emerald N/A N/A N/A N/A 2,020.38 2,157.90 1,964.73 1,609.41 1,510.00 1,694.69
Fiesta 1,880.06 1,646.11 1,582.88 1,240.15 2,151.54 1,556.28 1,648.40 1,910.65 1,022.55 1,590.78
Gator 683.30 351.37 489.32 359.76 736.91 741.77 461.25 661.00 552.40 1,005.90
GMAC N/A 717.02 362.91 794.15 700.53 689.82 649.35 1,068.07 489.05 811.33
Hawaii N/A N/A N/A N/A 2,105.00 1,949.00 2,181.00 3,654.50 1,459.00 3,848.50
Holiday 989.72 1,415.66 1,141.56 1,280.59 970.32 1,257.22 769.09 1,175.80 952.31 835.25
Houston N/A N/A 923.12 179.86 470.37 1,011.63 943.21 626.77 N/A N/A
Humanitarian 1,232.12 940.64 612.92 2,106.12 698.79 1,845.16 1,547.59 1,331.75 1,633.05 1,448.64
Independence 460.90 381.80 309.81 584.59 564.92 445.68 818.13 696.13 414.47 735.66
Insight 1,738.43 1,801.57 1,798.01 1,777.19 1,690.28 1,423.95 1,571.16 1,225.81 1,226.59 1,416.23
International N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 439.50 502.67
Las Vegas 1,318.14 408.33 668.78 345.28 421.74 766.57 527.43 472.05 647.41 323.58
Liberty 1,003.56 723.58 766.93 997.44 817.06 944.98 1,137.04 1,161.31 588.30 471.04
Meinecke N/A N/A N/A N/A 324.03 359.91 504.73 377.72 651.57 437.13
Micron PC.com 406.00 1,151.93 1,293.62 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Motor City 349.84 1,010.91 297.73 157.79 385.69 191.29 368.26 466.09 359.43 246.14
Music City 331.14 531.73 416.63 709.39 706.60 462.30 565.14 714.33 287.00 353.53
New Mexico N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 524.47 511.44
New Orleans N/A N/A N/A 1,026.25 684.29 477.72 334.72 287.86 330.37 609.61
Oahu 3,012.50 1,270.50 4,658.50 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Orange 883.07 1,086.26 991.30 707.28 2,106.81 240.85 2,119.11 868.32 948.15 1,205.45
Outback 971.59 764.38 756.62 756.62 649.45 701.57 899.16 701.57 887.37 997.65
Papajohns.com N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 587.35 352.64
Poinsettia N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,924.81 1,675.89 1,730.69
Rose 990.34 1,163.52 1,617.19 2,117.25 1,231.63 1,122.54 1,806.68 695.08 1,122.54 1,004.08
Seattle N/A N/A N/A 1,757.49 1,574.78 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Silicon Valley N/A N/A 759.95 1,260.29 1,296.04 245.97 2,267.72 N/A N/A N/A
Sugar 676.85 610.31 701.90 438.10 463.21 395.50 599.06 344.90 535.07 2,375.18
Sun 706.00 1,521.90 1,117.54 1,509.80 1,598.51 1,521.90 949.15 1,151.98 1,384.94 1,693.86
Texas N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,172.12 131.63

Source of data: Mapquest.com and ask.com. N/A ( not applicable) indicates the game was not played in that particular year.

Improved Winning Percentage (Impct): The regular season winning percentage (including a conference championship game, when applicable) of each team minus its winning percentage from the previous season (including a bowl game, when applicable). The two scores are averaged for this variable (Figure B). It is designed to measure how a team performed compared to expectation, something that would theoretically affect the enthusiasm of the fans and influence their decision to travel.

Improved Winning Percentage:

Regular Season Winning Percentage – Previous year’s total winning percentage

2007-’08 BCS Championship Game: Ohio State vs. LSU

Ohio State

2007 Regular Season = 11-1 = .917

2006-’07 Season = 12-1 = .923

Improved Winning Percentage = .917-.923 = -.006

LSU

2007 Regular Season = 11-2 = .846

2006-’07 Season = 11-2 = .846

Improved Winning Percentage = .846 – .846 = 0

2007-’08 BCS Championship Improved Winning Percentage:

(-.006+0)/2 = -.003

Figure B. Example of Improved Winning Percentage

Market Strength (Market): A measurement of the support for college football in a participating team’s area based on the number of D1-FBS institutions are located in the same state as the participating team. For example, a team from Texas would have a market strength rating of 10 because there are 10 D1-FBS teams in the state of Texas (Table 6). A team from Oklahoma would have a market strength rating of three for the same reason. Therefore, a bowl game played between the University of Tulsa and Texas A&M would have a market strength rating of 6.5.

Table 6
Market Strength

Bowl Market Strength (averaged between the two participating teams)
1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08
Alamo 3.0 6.5 2.0 6.0 2.0 3.0 5.5 3.0 6.0 6.5
Aloha 2.5 3.0 1.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Armed Forces N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 6.0 5.0 6.0 3.0 5.0
BCS N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 7.5 6.5
Capital One 3.5 6.0 4.5 4.5 3.5 3.0 3.5 2.5 1.5 6.0
Champs Sports N/A N/A N/A 4.0 26.0 5.0 2.5 2.5 3.0 3.0
Chick-fil-A 2.0 2.5 3.5 4.5 3.0 3.0 7.0 6.0 2.0 4.0
Cotton 6.5 6.0 3.0 2.5 7.5 2.5 7.0 7.0 3.0 1.5
Emerald N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.5 7.0 2.0
Fiesta 5.5 2.5 3.0 2.5 7.5 5.0 3.0 6.0 2.5 2.5
Gator 3.0 4.5 2.0 4.5 4.5 2.0 4.5 2.5 2.0 6.0
GMAC N/A 7.5 6.5 3.5 2.0 5.0 6.0 9.0 5.5 5.5
Hawaii N/A N/A N/A N/A 7.5 5.5 5.5 4.5 1.5 3.5
Holiday 1.5 2.0 6.0 6.0 2.0 6.0 8.5 2.5 8.5 6.0
Houston N/A N/A 7.5 10.0 3.0 6.0 6.5 6.0 N/A N/A
Humanitarian 2.5 2.0 6.0 3.5 2.0 2.5 4.5 1.5 4.5 4.5
Independence 6.5 3.0 6.5 3.0 2.0 1.5 5.0 1.5 3.5 3.5
Insight 1.5 2.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 4.5 3.0 1.5 5.5 3.5
International N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 6.5 2.5
Las Vegas 6.0 5.0 2.0 5.0 4.5 2.0 4.0 5.0 2.5 5.0
Liberty 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 6.5 3.0 2.5 5.0 6.0 5.0
Meinecke N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.0 2.5 3.0 6.0 1.5 3.0
MicronPC.com 6.0 2.5 3.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Motor City 2.0 2.5 5.0 8.0 4.5 5.5 4.5 6.0 4.5 4.5
Music City 3.0 2.5 2.5 1.5 1.5 2.5 2.0 1.5 2.0 4.5
New Mexico N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4.5 2.0
New Orleans N/A N/A N/A 6.5 9.0 7.0 6.5 2.5 7.0 5.5
Oahu 2.5 1.5 2.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Orange 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 4.5 7.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 2.0
Outback 3.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 4.5 1.5 4.5 3.5 2.5
Papajohns.com N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 6.0 5.0
Poinsettia N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.5 6.5 2.5
Rose 4.0 4.0 3.0 7.0 2.5 6.0 7.5 8.5 6.0 5.0
Seattle N/A N/A N/A 4.5 3.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Silicon Valley N/A N/A 5.0 6.0 4.5 7.0 3.5 N/A N/A N/A
Sugar 9.0 4.5 7.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 3.0 2.0 4.5 1.5
Sun 8.5 1.5 4.0 3.0 3.0 1.5 3.0 5.0 1.5 4.5
Texas N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.5 10.0

Sources: U.S. Department of Education N/A ( not applicable) indicates the game was not played in that particular year.

Notice (Notice): The number of days between the date of a team’s last regular season or conference championship game and the date of its bowl game. The notice for the two teams is averaged together for this variable. The theory is that the longer notice fans have, the more likely they are to travel to a bowl game (Table 7).

Table 7
Notice

Bowl Notice (averaged between the two participating teams)
1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08
Alamo 31.0 35.0 33.5 35.0 28.0 34.0 35.5 36.0 39.0 39.0
Aloha 31.0 31.5 30.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Armed Forces N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 20.5 30.0 27.0 28.5 37.5
BCS N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 44 44.0
Capital One 33.5 35.0 37.0 31.0 39.0 33.0 39.0 41.0 37.0 42.0
Champs Sports N/A N/A N/A 22.5 30.0 30.0 24.0 31.0 34.0 34.0
Chick-fil-A 33.0 37.5 34.5 30.0 31.0 37.5 34.0 30.5 35.0 37.0
Cotton 31.0 27.0 33.5 38.5 33.0 38.5 32.0 44.0 37.0 35.0
Emerald N/A N/A N/A N/A 31.0 39.5 33.0 36.5 28.5 30.5
Fiesta 37.0 42.0 40.5 31.0 34.0 34.0 35.0 40.5 33.5 32.0
Gator 33.5 31.5 40.5 31.0 35.5 33.0 39.5 30.0 30.0 41.5
GMAC N/A 29.0 26.0 22.5 14.5 17.0 27.0 27.0 37.5 39.5
Hawaii N/A N/A N/A N/A 24.5 22.5 23.5 25.0 25.5 29.5
Holiday 33.0 39.0 38.0 30.5 31.0 35.0 29.5 36.5 35.0 31.0
Houston N/A N/A 36.0 28.0 27.0 31.0 28.5 42.0 N/A N/A
Humanitarian 34.0 40.0 40.0 34.0 38.0 38.5 38.0 36.5 37.0 34.5
Independence 37.5 35.0 37.5 30.5 28.5 32.5 26.0 36.0 36.5 36.5
Insight 32.0 35.0 37.0 35.0 29.5 30.5 33.5 31.5 41.0 41.0
International N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 43.0 39.5
Las Vegas 24.5 28.0 27.0 31.0 21.5 25.0 26.0 33.0 27.0 21.0
Liberty 30.5 37.5 42.0 30.5 31.0 36.0 30.5 28.5 31.0 32.0
Meinecke N/A N/A N/A N/A 28.0 28.0 36.5 31.5 32.5 35.0
MicronPC.com 27.5 40.0 36.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Motor City 25.5 30.5 32.0 28.5 22.5 28.0 28.5 27.5 28.5 32.0
Music City 34.5 35.5 34.5 30.5 30.0 39.0 44.5 37.5 34.0 37.0
New Mexico N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 24.5 24.5
New Orleans N/A N/A N/A 24.0 17.5 19.0 18.0 24.0 23.5 23.5
Oahu 27.0 31.5 29.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Orange 38.5 35.0 39.0 39.0 40.0 33.0 31.0 38.0 31.0 36.5
Outback 37.5 38.0 44.0 41.5 36.0 36.5 38.5 40.0 41.0 38.0
Papajohns.com N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 28.0 28.0
Poinsettia N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 26.0 21.0 22.5
Rose 34.0 42.0 44.0 37.0 25.0 33.0 39.0 32.5 37.0 38.0
Seattle N/A N/A N/A 26.0 33.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Silicon Valley N/A N/A 39.5 30.0 28.5 34.5 40.0 N/A N/A N/A
Sugar 34.5 42.0 34.5 32.0 28.5 29.0 30.0 30.0 39.5 34.5
Sun 36.5 41.0 37.5 37.0 38.0 42.5 38.0 34.0 30.5 33.5
Texas N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 33.0 34.0

Source of data: Division 1A Historical Scores, jhowell.net. N/A ( not applicable) indicates the game was not played in that particular year.

November Winning Percentage (Novpct): The winning percentage of a team in games played during November or the first week of December (Table 8).

Table 8
November Winning Percentage

Bowl November Winning Percentage (averaged between the two participating teams)
1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08
Alamo 0.875 0.333 0.500 0.625 0.425 0.375 0.500 0.583 0.167 0.500
Aloha 0.500 0.666 0.333 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Armed Forces N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.875 0.500 0.625 0.458 0.625
BCS N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.000 0.733
Capital One 0.625 0.750 0.666 0.667 0.875 0.675 1.000 0.667 0.800 0.667
Champs Sports N/A N/A N/A 0.875 0.750 0.292 0.583 0.625 0.625 0.533
Chick-fil-A 0.583 0.583 0.833 0.576 0.800 0.875 0.750 0.775 0.833 0.666
Cotton 0.633 0.500 0.875 0.750 0.625 0.625 0.417 0.500 0.708 0.775
Emerald N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.433 0.500 0.833 0.583 0.625 0.625
Fiesta 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.875 0.875 1.000 1.000 0.775
Gator 0.875 0.625 0.583 0.500 0.375 1.000 0.500 0.750 0.600 0.666
GMAC N/A 0.833 0.500 0.567 0.650 0.750 0.708 0.583 0.775 0.900
Hawaii N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.567 0.550 0.650 0.800 0.650 0.750
Holiday 0.833 0.666 0.833 0.625 0.875 0.750 0.833 0.875 0.417 0.583
Houston N/A N/A 0.500 0.333 0.625 0.625 0.708 0.833 N/A N/A
Humanitarian 1.000 0.750 0.833 0.500 0.625 0.625 0.750 0.708 0.500 0.625
Independence 0.375 0.542 0.576 0.625 0.250 0.650 0.708 0.500 0.125 0.167
Insight 0.667 0.500 0.642 0.708 0.625 0.575 0.500 0.500 0.833 0.458
International N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.583 0.583
Las Vegas 0.875 0.666 0.625 0.750 0.625 0.625 0.333 0.500 0.625 0.625
Liberty 0.875 1.000 0.833 0.775 0.666 1.000 1.000 0.576 0.750 0.833
Meinecke N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.750 0.550 0.708 0.675 0.750 0.500
MicronPC.com 0.708 1.000 0.500 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Motor City 1.000 0.667 0.875 0.750 0.800 0.550 0.708 0.625 0.625 0.300
Music City 0.500 0.333 0.500 0.542 0.833 0.417 0.167 0.500 0.542 0.417
New Mexico N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.467 0.500
New Orleans N/A N/A N/A 0.708 0.917 0.875 0.600 0.500 0.900 0.750
Oahu 0.667 0.708 0.333 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Orange 0.708 1.000 1.000 0.868 1.000 0.675 1.000 0.625 0.800 0.875
Outback 0.583 0.417 0.333 0.708 0.750 0.750 0.500 0.666 0.583 0.733
Papajohns.com N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.750 0.750
Poinsettia N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.542 0.833 0.833
Rose 0.708 1.000 0.750 0.833 0.708 1.000 0.917 1.000 0.750 1.000
Seattle N/A N/A N/A 0.600 0.292 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Silicon Valley N/A N/A 0.875 0.700 0.750 0.400 0.750 N/A N/A N/A
Sugar 0.708 1.000 0.875 1.000 0.800 0.900 1.000 0.875 0.875 1.000
Sun 0.666 1.000 0.667 0.433 0.708 0.708 0.666 0.583 0.567 0.425
Texas N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.583 0.750

Stadium Size (Stadium): The seating capacity of the stadium when used for football games (Table 9).

Table 9
Stadiums

Bowl Years Stadium Capacity
Alamo 1993-Present Alamo Dome 65000
Aloha 1982-2000 Aloha Stadium 50000
Armed Forces 2003-Present Amon G. Carter Stadium 43000
BCS 2006-’07 University of Phoenix Stadium 73000
BCS 2007-’08 Louisiana Superdome 72500
Capital One 1986-Present Florida Citrus Bowl 65438
Champs Sports 2002-Present Florida Citrus Bowl 65438
Chick-fil-A 1993-Present Georgia Dome 71990
Cotton 1938-Present Cotton Bowl 71252
Emerald 2002-Present AT&T Park 38437
Fiesta 1971-’06 Sun Devil Stadium 73397
Fiesta 2007-Present University of Phoenix Stadium 73000
Gator 1997-Present Jacksonville Municipal Stadium 77000
GMAC 1999-Present Ladd-Peebles Stadium 40048
Hawaii 2002-Present Aloha Stadium 50000
Holiday 1978-Present Qualcomm Stadium 66000
Houston 2000-2005 Reliant Stadium 69500
Humanitarian 1997-Present Bronco Stadium 30000
Independence 1976-Present Independence Stadium 48947
Insight 1989-’99 Arizona Stadium 57803
Insight 2000-’05 Bank One Ballpark 42915
Insight 2006-Present Sun Devil Stadium 73397
International 2007-Present Rogers Center 53506
Las Vegas 1992-Present Sam Boyd Stadium 40000
Liberty 1965-Present Liberty Bowl Memorial Stadium 62598
Meinecke 2002-Present Bank of America Stadium 73298
MicronPC.com 1996-2001 Joe Robbie Stadium 77823
Motor City 1997-’01 Pontiac Silverdome 80368
Motor City 2002-Present Ford Field 65000
Music City 1998-Present LP Field 68000
New Mexico 2006-Present University Stadium 38634
New Orleans 2001-Present Louisiana Superdome 72500
Oahu 1998-’00 Aloha Stadium 50000
Orange 1996-Present Dolphin Stadium 77823
Outback 1998-Present Raymond James Stadium 65500
Papajohns.com 2006-Present Legion Field 72000
Poinsettia 2005-Present Qualcomm Stadium 66000
Rose 1943-Present Rose Bowl 91887
Seattle 2001-’02 Seahawks Stadium 67000
Silicon Valley 2000-’04 Spartan Stadium 30000
Sugar 1975-’05, 2007-Present Louisiana Superdome 72500
Sugar 2006 Georgia Dome 71990
Sun 1963-Present Sun Bowl Stadium 50426
Texas 2006-Present Reliant Stadium 69500

Data is from NCAA.com. N/A ( not applicable) indicates the game was not played in that particular year.

Winning Percentage (Wpct) — The percentage of games won by each team in the regular season (including conference championship games, when applicable), averaged together (Table 10).

Table 10
Winning Percentage (averaged between the two participating teams)

Bowl 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08
Alamo 0.792 0.739 0.773 0.591 0.615 0.708 0.636 0.636 0.625 0.625
Aloha 0.682 0.545 0.545 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Armed Forces N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.920 0.545 0.591 0.625 0.625
BCS N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.962 0.881
Capital One 0.784 0.784 0.739 0.780 0.708 0.760 0.818 0.826 0.843 0.708
Champs Sports N/A N/A N/A 0.591 0.576 0.542 0.545 0.610 0.671 0.676
Chick-fil-A 0.773 0.682 0.727 0.576 0.718 0.750 0.682 0.826 0.718 0.667
Cotton 0.697 0.626 0.748 0.735 0.833 0.750 0.693 0.576 0.763 0.756
Emerald N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.679 0.583 0.727 0.591 0.542 0.583
Fiesta 0.958 1.000 0.864 0.871 1.000 0.810 0.864 0.826 0.923 0.833
Gator 0.818 0.697 0.864 0.682 0.769 0.708 0.818 0.576 0.763 0.708
GMAC N/A 0.727 0.773 0.689 0.708 0.837 0.727 0.727 0.654 0.679
Hawaii N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.676 0.599 0.610 0.697 0.676 0.708
Holiday 0.833 0.773 0.818 0.780 0.724 0.792 0.682 0.746 0.750 0.792
Houston N/A N/A 0.610 0.591 0.583 0.625 0.655 0.773 N/A N/A
Humanitarian 0.682 0.693 0.773 0.591 0.728 0.583 0.727 0.739 0.583 0.625
Independence 0.545 0.636 0.576 0.591 0.542 0.666 0.606 0.591 0.500 0.500
Insight 0.682 0.636 0.682 0.648 0.667 0.641 0.545 0.591 0.542 0.542
International N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.625 0.583
Las Vegas 0.591 0.697 0.564 0.591 0.561 0.625 0.545 0.591 0.708 0.667
Liberty 0.846 0.727 0.818 0.875 0.818 0.784 0.955 0.576 0.676 0.676
Meinecke N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.683 0.625 0.636 0.591 0.750 0.667
MicronPC.com 0.682 0.636 0.591 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Motor City 0.777 0.864 0.610 0.727 0.679 0.635 0.652 0.564 0.638 0.599
Music City 0.682 0.545 0.591 0.682 0.638 0.583 0.545 0.591 0.667 0.583
New Mexico N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.583 0.583
New Orleans N/A N/A N/A 0.500 0.561 0.708 0.591 0.545 0.583 0.583
Oahu 0.731 0.652 0.591 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Orange 0.773 0.826 0.958 0.864 0.875 0.826 1.000 0.788 0.881 0.881
Outback 0.682 0.636 0.682 0.682 0.576 0.708 0.818 0.682 0.739 0.760
Papajohns.com N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.625 0.667
Poinsettia 0.591 0.667 0.708 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Rose 0.909 0.773 0.818 0.958 0.840 0.875 0.864 1.000 0.875 0.792
Seattle N/A N/A N/A 0.701 0.542 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Silicon Valley N/A N/A 0.682 0.696 0.599 0.558 0.682 N/A N/A N/A
Sugar 0.878 1.000 0.839 0.830 0.808 0.923 0.917 0.871 0.833 0.917
Sun 0.606 0.727 0.606 0.682 0.500 0.708 0.682 0.576 0.679 0.708
Texas N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.708 0.583

For Bowl games that are more than five years old (n = 194)

Five-year Average Attendance (FiveAtt) — The average attendance of a bowl game for the past five years (Table 11).

Table 11
Five-year Average Attendance

Bowl 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08
Alamo 53129.60 56142.40 60397.20 59483.40 61394.40 60422.00 59511.20 59488.20 59882.60 60011.20
Aloha 43592.00 44080.40 43302.80 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Armed Forces N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
BCS* N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 74872.20 76662.60
Capital One 70171.00 68396.60 66559.80 65786.00 65031.20 63710.00 63906.20 65549.80 63608.40 63824.60
Champs Sports N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 62519.00 65549.80
Chick-fil-A 66795.40 68687.40 70370.00 70927.80 72568.80 71992.40 72442.20 71645.60 70046.80 70762.60
Cotton 65886.00 66437.20 66938.20 67988.40 68193.80 70514.20 70777.60 71373.80 73525.20 72289.60
Emerald N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 29662.60
Fiesta 72114.80 73755.00 73266.60 72379.40 74181.80 75808.80 74399.80 74798.40 74952.00 74872.20
Gator 56165.20 56882.40 53125.60 57833.40 61853.20 65728.20 67348.40 72687.60 71695.40 70795.80
GMAC N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 39181.00 40373.00 39397.40 39119.80
Hawaii N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 33978.20
Holiday 53624.40 56273.60 55806.60 58252.00 59411.80 61003.00 60152.60 61973.40 62401.00 62770.40
Houston N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 42073.80 N/A N/A
Humanitarian N/A N/A N/A N/A 24655.50 25813.60 26504.40 26351.00 27209.00 28245.00
Independence 40344.20 42952.80 47479.00 45106.80 45959.00 45086.40 45639.00 44264.40 45136.00 45021.40
Insight 45341.60 42756.00 40884.00 41045.80 40627.00 38856.60 40100.00 42131.00 42475.60 44148.20
International N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Las Vegas 15165.80 16350.00 18483.00 22080.20 26235.40 27997.40 28799.00 28966.00 31154.00 33898.20
Liberty 40229.40 46448.40 50765.60 52946.40 54907.40 55907.00 56666.40 57364.20 56682.60 56109.60
Meinecke N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 61649.80
MicronPC.com 39691.40 40865.60 36916.80 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Motor City N/A N/A N/A N/A 43496.80 45203.20 49127.20 50665.00 50206.00 52195.80
Music City N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 46579.20 49351.40 50725.00 49405.00 53784.80
New Mexico N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
New Orleans N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 23360.60 22918.00
Oahu N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Orange 74557.20 71833.80 69575.40 70502.80 72571.40 72965.20 74729.20 76219.40 76407.00 76573.00
Outback 57864.60 60535.80 59070.80 59054.00 61671.60 63328.60 63202.00 64873.00 65003.40 64873.80
Papajohns.com N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Poinsettia N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Rose 101088.00 99615.00 97912.00 96770.00 95399.00 92525.00 92520.00 92468.00 92386.00 92401.00
Seattle N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Silicon Valley N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sugar 73515.40 73728.60 74339.80 73164.60 73033.40 74429.40 74997.20 74611.00 76621.20 76639.80
Sun 47080.20 47633.00 47262.00 47257.40 48275.60 48238.20 48894.60 49400.80 49667.40 49851.40
Texas N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

*Figures are based on last five bowls hosted by the local committee
Data source: NCAA.com
N/A (not applicable) indicates the game was not played in that particular year.

Results

When all bowl games (n=271) were counted, six variables combined to explain 82.2 percent of the variance in attendance (r2d = .822). The variables were: Seating Capacity (Stadium), Age of the bowl (Age), Average Home Attendance of the participants (AHAtt), number of miles in travel between the location of the institutions and the bowl games (Distance), and the number of days elapsed from the end of the regular season or conference championship game to the bowl game itself (Notice), as shown in Table 12.

Table 12
Model Summary

Model R r2 Adjusted r2 Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .743a .552 .551 12822.102
2 .841b .707 .704 10399.231
3 .884c .782 .779 8983.648
4 .897d .804 .801 8524.124
5 .903e .816 .813 8279.997
6 .907f .822 .818 8156.106
a. Predictors: (Constant), Stadium
b. Predictors: (Constant), Stadium, Age
c. Predictors: (Constant), Stadium, Age, AHAtt
d. Predictors: (Constant), Stadium, Age, AHAtt, Wpct
e. Predictors: (Constant), Stadium, Age, AHAtt, Wpct, Distance
f. Predictors: (Constant), Stadium, Age, AHAtt, Wpct, Distance, Notice

Each variable had a relationship to attendance that was statistically significant at the 0.01 alpha level (p > 0.01), as noted in Table 13.

Table 13
Coefficients and Relationships

Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) -5233.704 3280.305 -1.595 .112
Stadium .944 .052 .743 18.214 .000
2 (Constant) 4910.494 2794.302 1.757 .080
Stadium .636 .049 .501 12.887 .000
Age 318.709 26.845 .461 11.872 .000
3 (Constant) -2534.098 2535.494 -.999 .318
Stadium .527 .044 .415 11.947 .000
Age 237.622 24.682 .344 9.627 .000
AHAtt .294 .031 .327 9.598 .000
4 (Constant) -18954.895 3822.348 -4.959 .000
Stadium .485 .043 .382 11.401 .000
Age 190.531 24.920 .276 7.646 .000
AHAtt .270 .029 .301 9.216 .000
Wpct 30760.395 5564.072 .184 5.528 .000
5 (Constant) -16058.380 3779.075 -4.249 .000
Stadium .448 .042 .353 10.583 .000
Age 189.036 24.209 .274 7.808 .000
AHAtt .271 .029 .302 9.515 .000
Wpct 34305.556 5473.019 .205 6.268 .000
Distance -3.142 .764 -.112 -4.113 .000
6 (Constant) -24353.011 4626.876 -5.263 .000
Stadium .455 .042 .358 10.885 .000
Age 178.672 24.093 .259 7.416 .000
AHAtt .238 .030 .265 7.904 .000
Wpct 34631.879 5392.212 .207 6.423 .000
Distance -3.240 .753 -.115 -4.303 .000
Notice 299.769 99.308 .089 3.019 .003

Dependent Variable: Attendance

So a formula that would explain the variance in bowl attendance would look something like this:

S = Seating Capacity

A = Age of the bowl

T = Average Home Attendance of the Participating teams (The sum Average Home Attendance of each team divided by two)

W = Winning Percentage (the sum of the regular season winning percentages of the two participating teams, including conference championship games when applicable, divided by two).

D = Travel distance (the sum of the travel distance between each participating institution’s home city and the city hosting the bowl game, divided by two)

N = Notice (the sum of the number of days between the last regular season game or conference championship game of each team and the bowl game, divided by two)

Bowl Attendance = .455S + 172.672A + 34631.879W – 3.24D + 299.769N – 24353.011.

On bowls that were at least six years old (n = 194), the five-year attendance average was included as an independent variable. Five variables; Five Year Average Attendance (FiveAtt, Travel Distance (Distance), Winning Percentage (Wpct), Average Home Attendance (AHAtt), and Seating Capacity (Stadium); combined to explain 91 percent of the variance in attendance (r2d = .910), as can be observed in Table 14.

Table 14
Model Summary Bowls that are at least Six Years Old

Model R
VAR00021 > 5 (Selected) r2 Adjusted r2 Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .939a .883 .882 5893.063
2 .946b .894 .893 5604.919
3 .949c .901 .899 5451.683
4 .952d .906 .904 5301.487
5 .954e .910 .908 5202.987
a. Predictors: (Constant), FiveAtt
b. Predictors: (Constant), FiveAtt, Distance
c. Predictors: (Constant), FiveAtt, Distance, Wpct
d. Predictors: (Constant), FiveAtt, Distance, Wpct, AHAtt
e. Predictors: (Constant), FiveAtt, Distance, Wpct, AHAtt, Stadium

As in the previous formula, all variables had a relationship with attendance that was statistically significant (Table 1) at the 0.01 alpha level (p < 0.01).

Table 15
Coefficients and Relationships for bowls at least six years old.

Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 6456.892 1446.943 4.462 .000
FiveAtt .917 .024 .939 37.981 .000
2 (Constant) 9579.045 1533.840 6.245 .000
FiveAtt .913 .023 .935 39.696 .000
Distance -2.996 .650 -.109 -4.610 .000
3 (Constant) 2699.321 2491.405 1.083 .280
FiveAtt .846 .029 .867 28.691 .000
Distance -3.401 .643 -.123 -5.290 .000
Wpct 15344.128 4450.253 .105 3.448 .001
4 (Constant) 537.570 2502.378 .215 .830
FiveAtt .788 .033 .807 23.629 .000
Distance -3.253 .627 -.118 -5.190 .000
Wpct 15823.608 4329.875 .108 3.655 .000
AHAtt .082 .024 .097 3.452 .001
5 (Constant) -3309.442 2798.385 -1.183 .238
FiveAtt .690 .047 .707 14.603 .000
Distance -2.909 .627 -.105 -4.641 .000
Wpct 15173.014 4255.479 .104 3.566 .000
AHAtt .090 .023 .106 3.847 .000
Stadium .142 .050 .117 2.868 .005

The formula for bowls that are at least six years old would include:

S = Seating Capacity

T = Average Home Attendance of the Participating teams (The sum Average Home Attendance of each team divided by two)

W = Winning Percentage (the sum of the regular season winning percentages of the two participating teams, including conference championship games when applicable, divided by two).

D = Travel distance (the sum of the travel distance between each participating institution’s home city and the city hosting the bowl game, divided by two)

F = Average attendance over the past five years.

Attendance = 0.690F – 2.909D + 15173.014W + 0.09T + .142S – 3309.442

Discussion

Bowl committees will publicly state that they invite the most deserving teams more so than those that will bring the highest attendance. It is easy to see why the latter option would be more tempting. On table 12, where all bowls are included, it shows that average home attendance accounts for 7.5 percent of the variance in bowl attendance, while winning percentage only accounts for 2.2 percent. This can be figured from the r2d numbers on step 2, a formula that does not include Average Home Attendance but explains 70.7 percent of the variance, but step 3, which adds Average Home Attendance explains 78.2 percent of the variance, a difference of 7.5 percent. Step 4, which adds winning percentage, explains 80.4 percent of the variance, a difference of 2.2 percent. In Table 14, where only bowls that are at least six years old are studied, winning percentage accounts for 0.7 percent of the variance while Average Home Attendance accounts for 0.5. Notice, which theoretically would become an issue with the increasing number of bowl games played before Christmas and the later invitation dates brought about by the BCS and conference championship games, was not a factor in the bowls that were six years old or more and only explained .6 % of the variance in bowls overall.

Future Studies

Since the adjusted r2 for the first formula is .818, this means the average accuracy of any prediction on bowl attendance would be 81.8 percent (.908/90.8 percent on the second formula). Future studies could focus on bowls that exceed their expected attendance with a qualitative look at the marketing methods used by these bowls compared to other bowls that do not fare as well. Conferences and teams whose bowl appearances draw larger crowds than expected could also be studied.

The second formula, that takes five-year attendance averages into account, could be used by bowl committees to set goals for attendance each year. Since the bowls do not know until December who their participants will be, setting a goal based on this formula’s expectation and using it to measure improvement would be more reasonable.

References

Hardy, Stephen, Bernard J. Mullin and William A. Sutton (2003). Sports Marketing (pp. 55-75). Champaign, Ill: Human Kinetics.

Official Website of the NCAA. Retrieved May 13, 2008 from Ncaa.com.

Ask.com. Retrieved May16, 2008 from Ask.com.

Mapquest. Retrieved May 23, 2008 from Mapquest.com.

2017-08-07T11:42:34-05:00July 7th, 2008|Sports Management, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology|Comments Off on Factors Affecting Attendance at Bowl Games During the BCS Era

Active Versus Passive Recovery in the 72 Hours After a 5-km Race

Abstract

We do not clearly understand what type and duration of recovery works best after a hard run to restore the body to peak racing condition. This study compared 72 hr of active recovery after a 5-km running performance with 72 hr of passive recovery. A sample of 9 male and 3 female runners of above-average ability completed 3 trials within 6 days. Each 5-km trial was followed by 72 hr of passive recovery (PAS) or 72 hr of active recovery (ACT), a counterbalanced protocol. The 2 initial 5-km trials constituted separate PAS and ACT baselines. Mean finishing times did not differ significantly (p = 0.17) between ACT (19:35 + 1.5 min) and baseline (19:41 + 1.7 min); nor was there significant difference (p = 0.21) between PAS (19:30 + 1.5 min) and baseline (19:34 + 1.6 min). Average heart rate for PAS (177.9 + 6.3 b/min) was significantly higher (p = 0.04) than baseline (175.4 + 6.5 b/min), but ACT average heart rate (175.9 + 6.6 b/min) was significantly lower (p = 0.02) than baseline (178.9 + 6.4 b/min). For PAS, perceived rate of exertion at ending (19.8 + 0.6) was significantly greater (p = 0.01) than baseline (19.3 + 0.9), yet for ACT, perceived rate of exertion at ending (19.6 + 0.8) did not differ significantly (p = 0.17) from baseline (19.7 + 0.7). During PAS trials, 2 individuals ran a mean 12.0 + 2.8 s slower, 2 individuals ran a mean 33.0 + 21.0 s faster, and 8 individuals ran within 5.1 + 2.5 s of their first run. During the ACT trials, 1 participant ran 13.0 s slower, 3 participants ran a mean of 34.7 + 13.5 s faster, and 8 nonresponders ran within 5.5 + 2.7 s of baseline. Results indicate that 72 hr of passive and active recovery result in similar mean 5-km performance.

(more…)

2016-10-19T11:20:16-05:00July 7th, 2008|Sports Coaching, Sports Exercise Science, Sports Management, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology|Comments Off on Active Versus Passive Recovery in the 72 Hours After a 5-km Race

Cheerleading in the Context of Title IX and Gendering in Sport

Abstract

Existing scholarship on competitive cheerleading’s struggle for sanctioning and recognition under Title IX supports a conclusion that, while cheerleading perpetuates certain stereotypes, it is nevertheless a sport American women created for themselves, and it offers many of the same benefits of participation as other sports do. Research on (a) acceptance of and obstacles to high school and collegiate cheerleading today, (b) regulatory controls, (c) and media interest and hegemonic implications is reviewed. Myths and issues surrounding the safety and health of competitive cheerleaders are examined, including sexual abuse and sport injury.

Cheerleading in the Context of Title IX and Gendering in Sport

As sanctioning and recognition of competitive cheerleading today grows under the protection and regulation of Title IX, one might wonder if the society is regressing. In the 1960s we threw off Betty Crocker and Father Knows Best for the feminist movement and bra burning. Does the new sport of cheerleading represent backpedaling—with the added twist of actual (if limited) tax-dollar support of the phenomenon? How and why did cheerleading become competitive? Who are these new teams and why aren’t their members playing basketball, soccer, softball? Much of this paper is a review of existing research on (a) acceptance of and obstacles to high school and collegiate cheerleading today, (b) cheerleading regulatory controls, (c) and media interest in and hegemonic implications of cheerleading.

Competitive cheerleading hit the scene in the late 1970s, when the television network CBS first televised the Collegiate Cheerleading Championships, in 1978 (Mercer, 2006). Throughout the 1980s, tosses, stunts, and routines evolved increasing originality and difficulty. Safety guidelines were introduced by groups like the National Cheer Conference (Mercer, 2006). New cheerleading organizations formed, eager to develop rules and guidelines for the sport: the Universal Cheerleaders Association, American Association of Cheerleading Coaches and Advisors, National Council for Spirit Safety and Education, NFHS Spirit Association, Recreation Cheer Coaches Association, U. S. All Star Federation. Decades later, however, only 26 states appear to have given high school cheerleading Title IX status, despite its fierce competitiveness, its organization and rules standardization, its popularity and entertainment value, and the multimillion-dollar-value of the cheerleading industry. It seems safe to assume that cheerleading is ingrained in the American psyche as a female pursuit, an activity thus inferior to, for example, football and basketball as far as many social institutions are concerned. Perhaps in supporting cheerleading—insisting that spirit competitive squads, as they may be known, deserve to be treated like other athletic teams, including in their receipt of federal funding—individuals and groups are furthering, after all, the post–Betty Crocker agenda.

Like most sports, cheerleading was born in the male domain (although today 90% of cheerleaders are female). Purportedly, in 1898 one Johnny Campbell stood up before fans at a University of Minnesota football game to organize their enthusiasm. From that germ came today’s competitive sport, although it took until the 1920s for women to participate. In the 1940s, with men at war, women moved into cheerleading in numbers, equaling or exceeding their predecessors’ achievements. After World War II ended, cheerleading remained dominated by women, and so it continued to the millennium (Mercer, 2006).

It is widely known that many American public figures have been cheerleaders, for example presidents Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush. Other former cheerleaders in U.S. government include Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Mississippi Senator Trent Lott, while celebrity cheerleaders include Ann Margret, Paula Abdul, Halle Berry, Sandra Bullock, Katie Couric, Jamie Lee Curtis, Michael Douglas, Sally Field, Samuel L. Jackson, Madonna, Steve Martin, Reba McEntire, Cybill Shepherd, Jimmy Stewart, Meryl Streep, and Raquel Welch (Ninemire, 2008).

Today’s 3.5 million cheerleading participants over age six (Lin, Huang, & Esposito, 2007) thus have many role models. No doubt, they have contributed to the public acceptance of the sport that has spread to official acceptance and media popularity. The struggle for cheerleading’s recognition as a competitive team sport has slowly brought the activity to most high schools and universities in the country. Enactment of Title IX legislation has helped.

Title IX and Female Athletes

Title IX called for gender equity in school athletics, and part of its challenge was to increase girls’ interest in playing and competing in sports. Since its enactment, sports participation among females has soared, although still trailing the rate of participation by males. The U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights requires schools to pass one of three tests of gender equity in athletic participation. Each school must demonstrate that (a) numbers of male and female athletes are substantially proportional to total numbers of males and females enrolled, or (b) that the school has a history and continuing practice of program expansion for an underrepresented sex, or (c) that the interests and abilities of an underrepresented sex have been fully and effectively accommodated (National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education, 2008). Few institutions can offer evidence of compliance under the first two options; many instead opt to comply by “fully and effectively” accommodating female students’ interests. Since the early 1990s, two thirds of institutions have asserted their compliance this way, but the question, of course, is how to measure those interests (Rhode, 2007).

In 2005, Title IX was amended to allow institutions to use e-mail surveys to measure students’ interest in sports. If survey results indicate “sufficient” student interest, the school’s compliance is allowed to be presumed (unless a relevant “significant” occurrence has taken place). The Department of Education website offers a model survey, which certainly could be found underwhelming by a student pressed for time or hesitant about participating in athletics. Enforcement of survey completion would, furthermore, seem next to impossible—and what qualifications will be required of those who write and update such surveys and analyze the data? Another problem lies in the definition of terms: What exactly do “sufficient” and “significant” mean in this context? The loophole, of course, has critics:

Without any notice or opportunity for comment, the Department of Education issues an “Additional Clarification of Intercollegiate Athletics Policy Guidance: Three-Part Test—Part Three,” allowing colleges to use a single e-mail survey to show that they are meeting women’s interests in playing sports. (National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education, 2008, p. 6)

The Women’s Sports Foundation condemns the survey as a Title IX loophole, and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has asked schools not to use it (Brady, 2007).

Even Title IX’s best intentions can do nothing about recent decreases in the funding of athletics. The general slowdown is part of the reason for disproportionate female participation in sports. At the college level, only a small number of institutions need not worry about their budgets, and where there are competing demands for funds, athletic departments can experience shortfalls. Women’s sports has to compete as men’s sports does for available dollars, and all programs are subject to constraints. Suggs (cited in Rhode, 2007) explains that,

in the relatively well-off Division I institutions, expenditures have been rising faster than higher education budgets. Those budgets have, in turn, been rising faster than inflation. It is by no means self-evident that preserving intercollegiate competition in all male sports should be a priority for all schools or for society generally. Nor is it clear that the increasingly commercialized and competitive model of male sports is the one most women want to replicate. Title IX controversies raise broader questions about the role of sports in higher education that deserve closer public scrutiny.

Perhaps dissatisfaction with the traditional (male) model of athletics does contribute to females’ lesser participation. But that model is still key to such funding as is available. A sport like cheerleading, in order to gain federal funds, must meet the same criteria traditional sports must meet for that sanction. Like other athletes, cheerleaders can expect to have to comply with rules governing seasonality, numbers on squad or team, minimum athletic competence, approved use of equipment, and other matters.

Since the passage of Title IX, the added status women’s sports has gained by complying with the male model has, ironically, diminished women’s role in coaching and athletics-directing, especially at the college level. As Rhode explains (2007),

As opportunities for female students have increased, opportunities for female professionals have declined. The rise in status and financial resources in women’s sports has attracted male competitors for coaching positions. As a result, only 42% of women’s teams have a female head coach, compared to over 90% in 1972. . . . In the pre–Title IX era, women held almost all administrative positions in women’s athletics programs.20 Today, almost all of those programs are merged with men’s, and less than a fifth of athletic directors are women.21 (p. 14)

How must young female athletes view their own importance as they see fewer and fewer women trusted with authority in the world of sports? Advancement of female athletes has clearly had its ups and downs, which have affected the development of cheerleading, as well.

Title IX and Cheerleading

According to the Women’s Sports Foundation (2000) a sport is (a) a “physical activity which involves propelling a mass through space or overcoming the resistance of a mass,” (b) “a contest or competition against or with an opponent,” (c) “governed by rules which explicitly define the time, space and purpose of the contest and the conditions under which a winner is declared,” and (d) intended primarily to “compare[e] . . . the relative skills of the participants” (¶3). Does cheerleading comply with theses requirements? The foundation’s opinion on whether cheerleading and some other activities are indeed sports covered by Title IX and education department Office of Civil Rights (OCR) protections is a guarded one. Sufficient quality opportunities for competition is a Title IX concern, the foundation notes; the OCR assesses “the number of competitive events offered per sport, the number and length of practices and the number of pre-season and post-season competitive opportunities” (¶6). Thus if a cheerleading squad or drill team has as its overarching mission not presentations at male teams’ competitions, but rather

compet[ition] against other drill teams or cheerleaders on a regular season and post season qualification basis in much the same structure as basketball or gymnastics and if the team conducted regular practices in preparation for such competition while under the supervision of a coach, [then] these activities could be considered sports. On occasion, these groups could also put on exhibitions at boys’ or men’s sports events, but these exhibitions could not be their primary purpose. (¶7)

Still, the foundation warns that attempting to relabel girls’ existing, funded programs as sports programs when they are not is “unethical,” and that “danceline, drill team, cheerleading, baton twirling or the marching band are [in many cases] clearly not fulfilling the definitional requirements of sport” (¶8).

The National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS) appears interested in distinguishing sports competitors from cheerleaders involved only in extracurricular activities. A 2006–07 NFHS survey on participation counted participants on “competitive spirit squads”: cheerleading, pom, kick, dance, and drill teams. In terms of number of participants, such squads rank among the top 10 sports in high schools nationwide (National Federation of State High School Associations, 2007, p. 47). The squads comprise competitive athletes who over the past several years have qualified and been recognized as athletic teams by OCR under Title IX.

Collegiate cheerleaders operate within their institutions’ athletic departments, but are not always deemed to represent a sport. When a squad’s central purpose is to support and promote athletes in other sports, then it does not qualify as a sports team. To qualify, a squad must meet five OCR criteria for varsity sports, as follows:

  1. Selection of squad members must be based largely on factors related to athletic ability.
  2. The squad’s activity must have as a primary purpose the preparation for and participation in athletic competition against other, similar teams.
  3. The squad must prepare for and participate in competition in the same way other teams in the athletic program do, for example by conducting tryouts, being coached, practicing regularly, and being scheduled regularly for competitions.
  4. National-, state-, and conference-level championship competitions must exist for the squad’s activity.
  5. The squad’s activity must be administered by an athletics department.

While the specification of what makes a sport a sport has no doubt been beneficial to cheerleading, cheerleaders are like other female athletes nationwide in facing challenges to the advancement of their sports. Typifying these challenges is the case of McCormic and Geldwert v. School District of Mamaroneck and School District of Pelham (2004). Hoping to be observed by college recruiters, two female athletes wanted to compete in high school soccer during the fall. They attended schools where, by tradition, boys used the athletic facilities for their fall and winter sports, relegating girls’ soccer season to spring. Spring soccer not only potentially deprived them of collegiate opportunities, it interfered with their participation in state and regional championships, the girls claimed. In affirming the trial court’s finding for the girls in this case, the U.S. District Court of Appeals said,

Title IX was enacted in order to remedy discrimination that results from stereotyped notions of women’s interest and abilities, and to allow a numbers-based lack of interest defense to become the instrument of further discrimination against the underrepresented gender would pervert the remedial purpose of Title IX. (McCormic and Geldwert v. School District)

Unlike the two New York school districts of McCormic, the school district for Lacey, Washington, where there are three public high schools, made a willing effort to increase girls’ participation in sports (which had significantly trailed boys’). The district surveyed girls about the sports they would enjoy that were not already available to them. As a group they chose gymnastics over lacrosse, water polo, and power lifting (Wochnick, 2007). It may seem a small step, but the survey is nevertheless an encouraging sign that the fundamentals of Title IX are being implemented and organizations are acting on the Title IX tenet that girls’ purported lesser interest in sports does not justify boys’ greater access to sport.

Title IX also mandates that athletics funding for girls must be on a scale with that for boys. When Florida’s high school athletic association recognized cheerleading as a sport in 2007, cheerleaders looked forward to smaller personal expenditures for coaching, facilities, insurance, transportation, and uniforms. Cheerleading teams in states whose high school athletic associations do not sanction cheerleading cover their own costs, often running to hundreds of dollars monthly. During the 2006–07 school year only 26 states were represented in cheerleading competitions; yet how many states actually recognize cheerleading as a sport is hard to determine, because qualifying is difficult and registration and entry fees are high (Peters, 2003). Despite the sport of cheerleading’s recent recognition in Florida, squads have encountered roadblocks to financial support, in the form of school district decisions to delay an inaugural season until the 2008–09 school year. Public budgets are tight and, despite Florida high school cheerleaders’ new status, few school districts’ allocations covered spirit squads. Even when allocations do come, competitive cheerleaders will pay for extras (e.g., choreographers, camps) out of pocket and with the old standby, the fundraiser. Non-school-based all star teams are on their own, of course, financially.

A byproduct of nearly 30 years without sport status is competitive cheerleading’s reliance on private enterprise and independent, often certified professionals to supply training, coaching, and mentoring. All star gyms or clubs exist that have been tailored to the demands of cheerleader preparation, featuring for example spring-mat floors that meet competitive “specs.” Not surprisingly, most public high schools lack such ideal facilities. Their floor mats tend to be of foam. Nor are public school teachers reliably equipped with the background and certification ideal for leadership in so-called “adapted” sports. Further, as within the coaching profession generally after Title IX, ever fewer of the coaches overseeing high school competitive cheerleaders may be female. This does not bode well for a 90%-female competitive spirit sports constituency.

Health and Well-Being of Cheerleading Athletes

Cheerleading presentations are judged on originality of choreography, athleticism of athletes, showmanship—and degree of risk, as well. Cheerleading injuries have led to their fair share of law suits. [In at least one recent case, however, an injured plaintiff lost her bid for compensation from an allegedly negligent school (Krathen v. School Board of Monroe County, Florida). The Florida cheerleader and her parent had signed a certification of consent and release from liability, and an appellate court confirmed the trial court’s decision that the signed certification released the school board from liability (Herbert, 2008).] Injuries aside, the many benefits of sports participation to girls have been noted by Title IX supporters (and others). Research shows girls who play sports to be relatively more likely to graduate, to have greater confidence and better self-esteem and body image, to avoid teenage pregnancy, and to avoid drug use. Athletics is, furthermore, the kind of physical activity that builds muscle, reduces fat, reduces risk of heart disease, and prevents osteoporosis. A teen who exercises for only two hours weekly still reduces her lifetime risk of breast cancer. Of course, competitive cheerleaders can become injured, and there are as well two further health issues commonly associated with the sport: eating disorders and sexual harassment.

Sport-Related Injuries

Quantifying the risk of injury to cheerleaders is a challenge, given the lack of a national database tracking such incidents (Lin, Huang, & Esposito, 2007). What does exist are frequent alarming reports decrying near-epidemic levels of injury in the sport. The National Center for Catastrophic Sports Injury Research, for instance, reported that out of all athletes, cheerleaders are most likely to suffer catastrophic injury. According to Pennington (2007),

Emergency room visits for cheerleading injuries nationwide have more than doubled since the early 1990s, far outpacing the growth in the number of cheerleaders, and the rate of life-threatening injuries has startled researchers. Of 104 catastrophic injuries sustained by female high school and college athletes from 1982 to 2005—head and spinal trauma that occasionally led to death—more than half resulted from cheerleading. . . . All sports combined did not surpass cheerleading.

But such reports may well need to be questioned. The executive director of the Association of Cheerleading Coaches and Advisors, Jim Lord (2007), has argued with the publishers of the statistics, making the following points to refute many of the dramatic claims about cheerleading:

  1. The numbers being used are the same as those over the past two years, yet they are given as if this is continuing information and that injury rates continue to rise. No participation figures, relevant background information or corresponding data for other athletic activities are presented in these articles. In fact, no actual injury rate is ever given.
  2. Cheerleading does not have more serious injuries than football, hockey or all other sports combined. Over 350,000 people were treated in emergency rooms for football related injuries in 2004. That number is often ignored because there are probably more football players than cheerleaders, and it is primarily males that participate. It may be more realistic to compare cheerleading numbers to women’s basketball as the participation numbers are likely similar. In the same year in which 26,000 cheerleaders were treated in emergency rooms, they were sitting next to over 100,000 female basketball players. Nearly quadruple the amount of emergency room visits for women’s basketball, who a) have more access to an athletic trainer to filter out minor injuries and b) who do not participate in a year-round activity.
  3. The numbers being given also do not account for the fact that cheerleading is nearly a year round activity that takes place across sports seasons. Any comparison to other activities must account for the shorter participation time for those sports. Consider an athlete that participates in football and in basketball and is injured once in each season. Now consider another athlete participating on a cheerleading squad that cheers for football and basketball and is injured once during each of those seasons. The two injury rates are statistically equal, yet cheerleading will be shown to have twice the number of injuries. Without injury rate information, the statistics show what the author intends to show.
  4. Using emergency room visits is also inflammatory in that the vast majority, over 98% of those visits, were classified as “Treated & Released, Or Examined & Released Without Treatment.” The average person reading “emergency room visit” envisions 26,000 cheerleaders going into the emergency room on a stretcher. There are obviously serious injuries that need emergency procedures including hospitalization, but to include the percentage that were treated and released or even released without treatment needed only adds to the misrepresentation of cheerleading injuries and obscures the strides that have been made with regard to safety.

The report from the National Center for Catastrophic Injury incorporated statistics dating to 1982. Lord makes the valid point that cheerleading today enforces safety rules and stunt standards not enforced in the past. Numbers and types of flips and tosses are regulated and strict guidelines govern equipment from clothing to mats. It should also be remembered that through the 1980s, cheerleading was one of very few athletic outlets deemed acceptable for girls, so an injured girl athlete stood a relatively good chance of being a cheerleader.

Eating Disorders

Like young females in the population generally, cheerleaders in recent years are at a rising risk of developing eating disorders, which Pirtle (2002) contends are conservatively estimated to affect 5–10 million young American women and kill 50,000 directly. Doctors do not understand why women develop eating disorders, according to Pirtle, but do know that these disorders have death rates higher than any other psychiatric illness. Cheerleaders are at risk of eating disorders because (a) they share the same risk factors as young females who are not cheerleaders, (b) their sport has an “aesthetic” standard as well as an athletic one and performs before large audiences and even on television (which proverbially adds 10 lb), (c) they wear revealing costumes that may increase body consciousness as they highlight thinness, (d) the stunts they perform, as in the sport of gymnastics as well, are easier at low body weights, and (e) coaches have historically claimed small size produces more proficient tumbling and stunting (it is not uncommon for cheerleading teams to enforce weight standards with group weigh-ins) (Thompson, 2003). Scholarly research on cheerleaders is rare, but one study found high school cheerleaders to exhibit more body dissatisfaction and more eating disorders than college cheerleaders (Thompson, 2004).

Eating disorders in women and girls can lead to three interrelated health problems referred to at times as the female triad: lack of energy, menstrual disorders (amenorrhea), and weak bones (osteoporosis) (“The Female Triad,” 2006). Adulthood infertility and bone fractures (females accumulate about 50% of bone mass as teens) are potential effects. At greatest risk from the triad are those who participate in “aesthetic sports” (cheerleading, diving, gymnastics), weight-class sports (rowing, judo, karate, boxing, body building), and long-distance running. According to one study, primary menarche at 15 years occurs in 1% of girls in the general population and in 22% of girls competing in aesthetic sports. Cessation of periods might occur in 2%–5% of young women in general, whereas a study of one women’s track team found 65% of the athletes to be amenorrheic (“The Female Triad,” 2006).

Sexual Harassment

According to at least one study, students who experience some form of sexual harassment far outnumber students who get through school with no such incident. The research included 8th- through 11th-graders, 80% of whom, the results indicated, had been sexually harassed at school in some fashion—girls and boys alike. In colleges and universities the rate among female students, according to a survey, was 62%; harassment was occasionally the cause of dropping a course or avoiding a particular location (National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education, 2008, p. II).

Cheerleaders are young women who literally stand out in the crowd, making them prime targets for sexual harassment. Sexual harassment lawsuits are common in education: When a cheerleader sued Marshall University over alleged sexual harassment, counsel at the Higher Education Policy Commission (the board that coordinates public colleges in West Virginia) said “lawsuits against the commission ‘happen about every day’” (Leubsdorf, 2006). Perhaps not surprisingly, a Westlaw search shows the vast majority of lawsuits involving cheerleaders to fall into the category of sexual harassment.

The National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education’s report Title IX at 35: Beyond the Headlines reiterates the legal power stemming from Title IX as it relates to sexual harassment in schools at any level:

Sexual harassment is sex discrimination that is prohibited by Title IX, whether the student is harassed by employees such as teachers or coaches, or by other students. Students who have suffered sexual harassment may sue for damages in court under Title IX, but schools have an obligation to end harassment that goes well beyond their monetary liability. OCR issued a Sexual Harassment Guidance in 1997, which was revised in 2001, that requires all schools subject to Title IX to maintain an environment that is free of sexual harassment and to remedy the effects of harassment on the victim. (National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education, 2008, p. II)

Title IX may protect cheerleaders (to some extent) from sexual harassment in public schools, but all star competitive cheerleaders function in environments not necessarily subject to Title IX. Harassment could go unpunished there, but in at least one case crime did not. In Vancouver, Washington, a cheerleading coach was sentenced to a nine-month jail stay and 10 years’ registration as a sex offender for having sex with a 16-year-old athlete he was training. As many other states do, Washington prohibits teachers and coaches from having sex with students, whatever the student’s age (Rice, 2008).

Hegemonic Implications

Title IX has greatly increased opportunities for girls and women to participate in sports. Since the statute’s enactment in June 1972, the number of female high school athletes has increased over 900%, from some 290,000 to 2.9 million. Women’s participation in intercollegiate sports has soared from 16,000 to 180,000, or more than 450% (Rhode, 2007). While the express purpose of Title IX was to prohibit sex discrimination in institutions receiving federal funding, the regulation also explicitly permits organizers of school-based contact sport programs to segregate competitors by sex. (The primary contact sports are boxing, wrestling, rugby, ice hockey, football, and basketball; other sports whose purpose or major activity involves bodily contact may also be included.) As McDonagh and Pappano explain (2008),

A recipient may operate or sponsor separate teams for members of each sex where selection for such teams is based upon competitive skill or the activity involved is a contact sport. However, where a recipient operates or sponsors a team in a particular sport for members of one sex but operates or sponsors no such team for members of the other sex, and athletic opportunities for members of that sex have previously been limited, members of the excluded sex must be allowed to try-out for the team offered unless the sport is a contact sport.

McDonagh and Pappano illuminate, moreover, the reality that the use of Title IX to sanction segregation within the contact sports has been a signal to non-contact sports (and some other activities) to follow suit. Title IX does not seem to suggest that billiards, chess, or bridge should be sex-segregated, but they have been. Title IX would seem to encourage, not discourage, mixed-sex teams for tennis, skiing, bowling, and even discus throwing, with men and women competing against each other. Title IX’s language separating male from female within the realm of contact sports perpetuates the male model of sport more than it promotes the equality of men and women. Not accepted on those teams, women have been distanced, connoting inferiority of their athletic ability and perhaps their will to compete.

Women stepping aside is an old theme, not confined to sports but reappearing readily even in cheerleading—90% female or not. For example, Thompson (2003) examines how it is assumed that, where cheerleader physical standards are concerned, it is the female gender that must hold to the mark. Thompson cites a 1996 study by Reel and Gill that found that cheerleaders were pressured from many sides to lose weight. The weight-watching college coaches who were interviewed claimed that below-average-sized females (and males) better demonstrated the required flexibility, in the same way that above-average-sized basketball players better demonstrate the ability to get to the basket. The argument as it figures in cheerleading, apparently, is that the females must be small so that males can lift them.

A case in the Superior Court of Connecticut involved a cheerleader dismissed for failing to satisfy her squad’s weight restriction (Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Michelle Budnik v. State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut, et al., 1996). Her suit was dismissed on appeal, with the following remarks:

As for the weight restriction, the hearing officer found that the defendant, UConn, had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for imposing the weight standard. . . . [I]n order for the entire squad to perform advanced partner stunts, which included lifting and tossing, it was necessary for general limits on how much the female cheerleaders, the “tosses,” could weigh. [The cheerleading coach] did not arbitrarily pick a number, but reviewed comparable programs at different schools to set the maximum at 125 pounds. The cheerleading coach testified that tossing was involved in 85 to 90 percent of the cheers the squad performed. (Budnick v. Connecticut, 1996)

It is not likely that any mention was made before the Court of male cheerleaders’ ability to bench press the 130 lb required by team rules. Thompson (2003) asks why coaches can’t as easily require male cheerleaders to be stronger as requiring female cheerleaders to be lighter. Another option would be the elimination of stunts, something the University of Nebraska’s athletic director suggested, concerned about safety (Thompson, 2003). But we need to remember the sensationalism Lord (2007) pointed out as coloring reports on cheerleading injuries. Male-dominated sports do not seem subject to censure simply because they involve risk. No one suggests removing tackling or the kickoff from the playbook. What is advised is increased safety awareness, proper supervision, and training in proper techniques—the same things that are recommended by organizations governing cheerleading.

Conclusion

The sport of cheerleading is here to stay. If it can perhaps be accused of perpetuating stereotypes with its sexualized performance—“aesthetic” standards, revealing costumes, pom-poms—competitive cheerleading also provides an example of American women turning the tables. Cheerleading was originated by men and handed to women in a sort of afterthought. But once it became women’s, it was developed with courage, perseverance, and creativity into something different, competitive cheerleading: women’s own sport for which they struggled and which they are establishing in more and more states as well as internationally.

Volumes have been written on the benefits of participating in sports, and women have proven their love for sports’ competitive demands: skill, strength, precision, courage, excellence. The sport of cheerleading incorporates all of these, truly earning respect and support for its athletes as they work to manifest their own view of the world through sports. Title IX rightly works to afford them equal opportunity: After all, the greater the success of women in any sport, in any endeavor, the greater the success of the society as a whole.

References

Brady, E. (2007). Enforcement of Title IX survey scrutinized. USA Today. Retrieved February 1, 2008, from the Ebsco database.

Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Michelle Budnik v. State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut, et al. (Conn.Super. 1996).

The female triad: Common or not? (2006). Eating Disorders Review, 17(4), 8. Retrieved January 1, 2008, from the Ebsco database.

Herbert, D. (2008). Florida cheerleader’s suit barred by release. Sports Medicine Standards and Malpractice Reporter, 20(1), 6. Krathen v. School Board of Monroe County, Florida, No. 3D07-815 (Fla. App. 2007).

eubsdorf, B. (2006). Former cheerleader sues Marshall U. Chronicle of Higher Education, 52(45), 35.

Lin, Z. P., Huang, H. T. & Esposito, R. (2007). Investigating injuries in cheerleading. The Sport Supplement, 15(4). Retrieved July 3, 2008, from http://sportsupplement.org/article/investigating-injuries-cheerleading

Lord, J. (2007). The reality of cheerleading safety in 2007. Retrieved January 1, 2008, from http://www.aacca.org/cheersafety2007.pdf

McCormic and Geldwert v. the School District of Mamaroneck and School District of Pelham, 370 F.3d 275, 188 Ed. Law Rep. 62 (C.A.2 N.Y. 2004). Retrieved December 1, 2007, from the Westlaw database.

McDonagh, E., & Pappano, L. (2008). Playing with the boys: Why separate is not equal in sports. London: Oxford University Press.

Mercer, L. (2006). In high spirits. Sporting Goods Dealer, 205(2), 18–20. Retrieved January 1, 2008, from the Ebsco database.

National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education. (2008). Title IX at 35: Beyond the headlines. Retrieved January 1, 2008, from http://www.ncwge.org/PDF/TitleIXat35.pdf

National Federation of State High School Associations. (2007, September 5). High school sports participation increases again; girls exceeds three million for first time. Retrieved July 3, 2008, from http://www.nfhs.org/web/2007/09/high_school_sports_participation.aspx and http://www.nfhs.org/core/contentmanager/uploads/2006-07_Participation_Survey.pdf

Ninemire, V. (n.d.). Famous cheerleaders. Retrieved January 1, 2008, from http://cheerleading.about.com/od/famouscheerleaders/FamousCheerleaders.htm

Pennington, B. (2007, March 31). As cheerleaders soar higher, so does the danger. New York Times. Retrieved January 1, 2008, from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/31/sports/31cheerleader.html

Peters, C. (2003). Chapter 3: Spirit or sport? Competitive Cheerleading, 22(10).

Pirtle, J. (2002). Why don’t they just eat? Health, 16(2), 96–98. Retrieved February 1, 2008, from the Ebsco database.

Rice, S. (2008). Ex-cheerleading coach sentenced. The Columbian. Retrieved January 1, 2008, from the Ebsco database.

Rhode, D. (2007). Title IX today, Title IX tomorrow: Gender equity in college athletics. Retrieved July 3, 2008, from http://ethics.stanford.edu/titleixconference/titleIX_summary.pdf

Thompson, R. (2003). The last word: Cheerleader weight standards. Eating Disorders, 11(1), 87–91. Retrieved January 1, 2008, from the Ebsco database.

Thompson, S. (2004). A preliminary survey of dieting, body dissatisfaction, and eating problems among high school cheerleaders. Retrieved January 1, 2008, from the Ebsco database.

U. S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights. (2005). Model survey: Assessment of students’ athletic interests and abilities issued in 2005. Retrieved February 1, 2008, from http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/title9guidanceadditional.pdf

Wochnick, M. (2007). Girls’ gymnastics a new sport for three Lacey high schools. The Olympian. Retrieved November 1, 2007, from the Ebsco database.

Women’s Sports Foundation. (2000, July 20). Cheerleading: Cheerleading, drill team, danceline and band as varsity sports: The foundation position. Retrieved November 1, 2007, from http://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/Content/Articles/Issues/Title-IX/C/Cheerleading–Cheerleading-Drill-Team-Danceline-and-Band-As-Varsity-Sports-The-Foundation-Position.aspx

2015-11-06T20:23:36-06:00July 7th, 2008|Contemporary Sports Issues, Sports Exercise Science, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology|Comments Off on Cheerleading in the Context of Title IX and Gendering in Sport

Parameters That Influence Vertical Jump Height

Abstract

Plyometric activities use rapid switching from eccentric to concentric contractions to increase speed or force of muscle contractions. Training the stretch-shorten cycle by jumping enhances athletic performance. This study sought optimal box heights athletes could drop from to obtain maximal rebound height. Division-III collegiate football players (n = 55) older than18, weighing no more than 100 kg, and with no lower-extremity injury were the participants. Initial data collected measured height, weight, leg length, age, standing vertical jump, and quadriceps strength. Peak torque and work per repetition were calculated for eccentric and concentric quadriceps activity. Participants completed 3 box drops from each of 4 different box heights as vertical rebound was measured. ANOVA showed rebounds did not differ significantly by box height, nor did rebound from any height differ significantly from standing vertical jump. Little to no correlation (Pearson’s r < 0.25) was found between vertical rebound from any height and concentric or eccentric work per repetition or eccentric peak torque. Fair correlation (Pearson’s r = 0.29–0.33) was found between concentric peak torque and vertical rebound from all heights. Leg length correlated moderately (Pearson’s r = 0.56–0.61) with vertical rebound from all heights. Because results indicate greater box drop height is not statistically associated with greater vertical rebounds, using a box height above 0.12 m (the shortest tested here) is likely to increase injury risk without providing any accompanying benefits. The study is limited by the fact that jumping technique was not included as a variable, although clearly technique could be a component in rebounding.

(more…)

2016-10-24T10:17:51-05:00July 7th, 2008|Sports Coaching, Sports Exercise Science, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology|Comments Off on Parameters That Influence Vertical Jump Height
Go to Top