Latest Articles

Submitted by: Robert C. Schneider & William F. Stier Jr.

Given the many demands placed on the current day athletics director, the necessity of appropriate education has become paramount. Several years ago, Leith (1983) recognized the need for athletic administrators to be competent in a variety of skills. Today, the need for athletics directors to be well versed in multiple job-related skills has become even more apparent.

The current status of athletic administration among National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) colleges and universities suggest that occupational demands are being placed on sport administrators at an increasing rate (Bradley, 1993; Lea & Loughman 1993; Neilsen, 1990). Copeland and Kirsch (1995) recognized the escalating responsibilities and the inherent demands of contemporary sport in order to maintain competitive programs. It was discovered in a study undertaken by Cleave (1993) that intercollegiate administrators generally perceived their jobs as becoming more complex.

Coursework and Standards Pertinent to the Athletics Director

Schneider and Stier (2001) stressed the importance of prospective athletics directors obtaining formal education through specific college/university courses in order to become knowledgeable as an athletics director. Courses deemed most pertinent for the position of athletics director were athletic administration, legal liability, facilities and equipment, and communications (Hall & Bradwin,1989). Stier and Schneider (2000) stated that colleges and universities must recognize the need for potential athletics directors to be competent in the areas of fundraising and promotions, and offer courses accordingly. Hatfield, Wrenn, and Bretting (1987) found that NCAA athletics directors and professional sport managers deemed the following educational courses to be most important for career preparation: athletic administration, speech communication, public relations, marketing, and business management.

Research/literature should play a role in ensuring that coursework is effectively preparing athletics directors to succeed upon their employment as an athletics director. For example, when the results of research, such as that completed by Hums, Barr, and Gullion (1999), indicate that sport industry managers need to recognize and confront ethical issues, the area of ethics should be taken into consideration when developing and continually updating formal education courses and strategies.

The View of Intercollegiate Presidents

Hoch (1998) noted the importance of informing and educating presidents of universities to the challenges within an athletic department and the skills necessary to meet those challenges.
Presidents, according to Covell and Barr (2001), feel the need to address, in detail, the many problems associated with athletics. According to Seidler, Gerdy, and Cardinal (1998) as a result of problems in intercollegiate athletics, university presidents have taken an active role in the oversight of athletic departments.

To date, this present investigation is the only national study of all NCAA institutions, separated by division, asking presidents what type of formal and informal education they believed to be important for the success of the athletics director at the collegiate level. The purpose of this study was to find out how formal and informal education is related to the success of the athletics director at the collegiate/university level. More specifically, this study sought to determine – in the opinions of presidents of colleges and universities – the specific content areas and levels of education, essential to the success of the college/university athletics director.

METHODS

Subjects

The subjects were the presidents of NCAA affiliated colleges and universities throughout the United States. Current addresses of the subjects were obtained from the NCAA headquarters in Indianapolis, Indiana. Surveys were coded by division (NCAA I, II, and III) enabling the researchers to differentiate between divisions and making it possible to make divisional comparisons.

Questionnaire

The questionnaire consisted of 19 formal and informal areas of education in the form of Likert type scale statements. In selecting one of the five Likert type scale responses – essential, very important, important, not very important, irrelevant – the presidents selected the level of importance of specified formal and informal areas of education necessary for the successful completion of duties and responsibilities of an athletics director.

The respondents to the questionnaire included all of the presidents of the NCAA affiliated colleges and universities throughout the United States. Division I presidents returned 161 of 318 surveys for a return rate of 50.6%; Division II presidents returned 137 of 248 surveys for a 55.2% return rate; and Division III presidents returned 201 of 395 surveys for a 50.8% return rate.

Results

This investigation ascertained NCAA presidents’ views related to the importance of formal and informal areas of education necessary for the successful completion of duties and responsibilities of athletics directors. The results that follow, along with discussion, provide insights that can be of value for prospective as well as current athletics directors.

Table 1 displays the rate at which the NCAA presidents at Divisions I, II, and III believed each of the 19 formal and informal areas of education were essential, very important, important, unimportant, or irrelevant to the success of athletics directors. There were results for 17 formal areas of education (5 degrees and 12 courses) and 2 informal areas of education (sport/administrative clinic attendance and professional reading).

When examining the results of the formal degrees, the baccalaureate degree was easily judged to be the most essential by the presidents of Division I (81.4%), Division II (82.0%), and Division III (89.2%) for the success of athletics directors. Judged as the second most essential area of education, by the presidents, was the master’s degree. The master’s degree was believed to be at least important (combining the essential, very important and important responses) by presidents of Division I (94.1%), Division II (93.9%), and Division III (93.9%). A certificate beyond the master’s degree was thought to be not very important or irrelevant by the presidents of Division I (59.3%) and Division III (53.3%), yet was believed to be at least important by presidents of Division II at 56.0%. The Specialist (Ed.S.) Degree was also believed to be not very important or irrelevant by presidents of Division I (72.1%), Division II (67.3%), and Division III (66.2%). Finally, in terms of degrees, a doctoral degree was viewed to be not very important or irrelevant by the presidents of Division I (69.6%), Division II (63.8%), and Division III (63.5%).

The presidents provided their opinions regarding the importance of completing formal coursework in order to succeed as an athletics director. A total of 12 different college level courses were included. Taking a class in socio-cultural dimensions in sport was believed to be not very important or irrelevant by 54.2% of Division I presidents; however 31.4% of Division I presidents believed socio-cultural dimensions in sport to be important. Division II presidents, at a rate of 62.1%, believed that taking courses in socio-cultural dimensions in sport was at least important. And, Division III presidents at a rate of 64.9% believed taking courses in socio-cultural dimensions in sport to be at least important.

Management and leadership in sport courses were believed to be at least important (combining the essential, very important and important responses) by Division I presidents (61.0%), Division II presidents (65.5%), and Division III presidents (70.2%). Completing sport management ethics courses was believed to be not very important or irrelevant by over one-third of the Division I presidents (37.3%), whereas Division II and III presidents believed taking sport management ethics courses to be at least important at a rate of 69.0% and 83.8% respectively. Marketing in sport courses were believed be at least important by Division I presidents (61.9%), Division II presidents (65.5%), and Division III presidents (72.3% ). And, communication in sport courses were believed to be at least important by Division I presidents (60.2%), Division II presidents (64.6%), and Division III presidents (70.9%).

Of all the formal coursework areas, across the three NCAA divisions, budget and finance courses were believed to be the most important by the presidents. The Division I presidents believed budget and finance to be essential at a rate of 10.2% and when combining the responses for essential, very important, and important the rate increased to 61.9%. Division II and III presidents thought budget and finance to be at least important, at rates of 65.5% and 74.3% respectively.

Legal aspects of sport courses were believed to be at least important by Division I presidents (61.0%), Division II presidents (65.3%), and Division III presidents (77.1%). Economics in sport courses were thought to be at least important by Division III presidents (61.6%), yet were thought to be not very important or irrelevant by Division I presidents (48.3%) and Division II presidents (51.7%). Venue and event management in sport courses were believed to be not very important or irrelevant by 55.1% of Division I presidents; yet were perceived to be at least important by Division II (53.5%) and Division III (58.1%) presidents.

The results showed Division I presidents to be somewhat indifferent to governance in sport courses, as 51.6% viewed governance in sport as at least important and 48.4% viewed it as not very important or irrelevant. Division II and III presidents had similar opinions, as they viewed governance in sport as at least important at 52.6% and 54.7% respectively, yet believed governance in sport to be not very important or irrelevant at rates of 47.4% and 45.3% respectively.

Field experiences in sport courses were believed to be not very important or irrelevant by 56.7% of the Division I presidents. Division II and III presidents, somewhat contrarily, believed field experiences in sport courses to be at least important at respective rates of (56.9%) and (51.4%).

Of all the formal coursework, research in sport courses were believed to be the least important by the presidents. Over one-fourth (27.2%) of the Division I presidents believed research in sport to be irrelevant and when combined with those that thought it to be not very important (35.6%), the rate of presidents believing research in sport to be not very important or irrelevant increased to 62.8%. Division II presidents also believed research in sport to be not very important or irrelevant at a rate of 62.8%. Division III presidents felt nearly the same, as 62.2% of them believed research in sport to be not very important or irrelevant.

When examining the two informal education areas of sport/administrative clinic attendance and professional reading it was learned that the presidents across the NCAA divisions found these two informal areas of education to be at least important at high rates. Sport/administrative clinic attendance was believed to be at least important by the presidents of Division I (80.5%), Division II (95.6%), and Division III (90.6%). Additionally, Division II presidents believed sport/administrative clinic attendance to be essential at a rate of 14.7%. Professional reading was believed to be at least important by presidents of Division I (92.4%), Division II (94.9%), and Division III (94.6%). When examining the rate at which presidents of all three NCAA divisions found professional reading to be essential for the success of an athletics director the results were noteworthy. Over one-third (35.8%) of Division III presidents believed professional reading to be essential as did 16.4% of Division II presidents and 17.8% of Division I presidents.

Discussion

Given the effect that intercollegiate presidents can have on the employment status of their athletics directors, it is necessary that athletics directors, at the very least, make themselves aware of the opinions that presidents hold concerning the importance of athletics directors possessing different types of formal and informal education. Certainly, the athletics director can perform more effectively if he/she is aware of the degrees of importance that presidents have placed on selected areas of formal and informal education in this national study of college and university presidents of all three divisions of the NCAA.

In terms of educational degrees, it is essential to the success of an athletics directors to attain a baccalaureate degree and it is very important that they earn a master’s degree. Although a certificate beyond a master’s degree, a specialist (Ed.S.) degree, and a doctoral degree would be helpful, these three degrees are not considered essential or very important to the success of the athletics director.

The two areas of informal education – sport/administrative clinic attendance, and professional reading – were the two areas in the study that were believed to be important to the success of athletics directors by the highest rate of presidents at each of the three NCAA divisions. Given this information, administrators would be wise to budget funds for professional development in the form of clinics and strongly encourage or require their athletics directors to attend. As for professional reading, athletics directors should identify, subscribe to, and read current professional literature related to their profession.

Not surprisingly, socio-cultural dimensions in sport courses, management and leadership courses in sport, and marketing in sport courses were all believed to be important by the presidents. These courses should not only be sought out and completed by athletics directors but should also be offered as part of professional preparation programs for the purpose of training prospective athletics directors.

In order to gain an understanding of the legal environment of athletic departments, legal aspects courses should be completed by athletics directors. In this litigious society, in order to protect the financial well being of the athletic department it makes sense that athletics directors – as was indicated by the presidents – understand legal aspects related to the athletic environment.

Somewhat surprising was the higher than expected rate at which Division I presidents believed field experiences to be not very important or irrelevant for the success of athletics directos. It might be that the Division I presidents simply do not believe a field experience can capture the realities of directing athletics at the Division I level. Division II and III presidents, overall, viewed field experience as important, which is more what the researchers expected.

Athletics directors at each of the three NCAA Divisions should make sure they understand the finances of athletic departments and are also competent in the area of athletic budgets. The ability to balance the athletic department budget, which includes financial decisions that directly affect men’s and women’s programs, must be an area in which athletics directors are competent. Without strong fiscal management skills, goals of the athletic department will become difficult to realize.

It seems that ethics in the area of athletics has been somewhat forgotten, given the relatively low rate of presidents who believed ethics to be important. This is quite disturbing since one might argue that ethics in athletic departments begins with the upper administration and trickles down to the players. If ethics is not believed to be important by presidents and athletics directors, the chances that players will behave ethically during sporting contests is unlikely.

As academia attempts to offer formal coursework that will prepare the potential athletics director for the rigors of the job, the importance of identifying the necessary elements required for the success of the athletics director, becomes imperative. Educators must possess an awareness of the essential, as well as the very important formal and informal educational components, necessary for the success of the athletics director. This identification process becomes even more challenging, given the increased depth and breadth of the tasks required of the current day athletics director. The findings of this study should also be used as part of the ongoing process of developing and refining curriculums intended to prepare the prospective athletics director.

Recommendations

It is recommended that various athletic department personnel be surveyed as a means of ascertaining their opinions concerning the degrees of importance of formal and informal education necessary for the success of the athletics director. Used in combination with the results of this study – that surveyed presidents – a more broad understanding of the overall degrees of importance associated with the success of the athletics director might be gained.

References

1. Bradley, M. (1993, September). In the thick of it. Athletic Management, 5, 16-22.
2. Cleave, S. (1993). Applicability of job diagnostic survey to administrative positions in university physical education and sport. Journal of Sport Management, 7, 141-150.
3. Copeland, B., & Kirsch, S. (1995). Perceived occupational stress among NCAA
   division I, II, and III athletic directors. Journal of Sport Management, 9(1),
   70-77.
4. Covell, D., & Barr, C.A. (2001). The ties that bind: Presidential involvement with the development of NCAA Division I initial eligibility legislation. The Journal of Higher Education, 72(4), 414-452.
5. Hall, K. G., & Bradwin, G. (November/December 1989). Qualifications for secondary school athletic directors. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 60(9), 65-68.
6. Hatfield, B.D., Wrenn, J.P., & Bretting, M.M. (1987) Comparison of job responsibilities of intercollegiate athletic directors and professional sport general managers. Journal of Sport Management, 1, 129-145.
7. Hoch, D. L. (1998). Educating your school administrator. Coach and Athletic Director, 68(4), 4-5.
8. Hums, M. A., Barr, C.A., & Gullion, L. (1999). The ethical issues confronting managers in the sport industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 20(1), 51-56.
9. Lea, M., & Loughman, E. (1993, October). Crew, compliance, touchdowns and torts: The growth of the modern athletics department, its legal needs and models for satisfying them. Athletics Administration, 28(5), 48-51.
10. Leith, L. M. (1983). The underlying process of athletic administration. Physical Educator, 40(4), 211-217.
11. Neilsen, F. E. (1990). A competency analysis of NCAA athletic administrators. Dissertation Abstracts International, 51(3), 785A.
12. Schneider, R. C., & Stier, W. F. Jr. (2001). Recommended educational experiences for high school athletic directors (AD’s). The Physical Educator, 58(4), 211-221.
13. Seidler, T.L., Gerdy, J.R., & Cardinal, B.J. (1998). Athletic director authority in
    division I intercollegiate athletics: perceptions of athletic directors and university presidents. International Sports Journal, 2(2), 36-46.
14. Stier, W. F. Jr., & Schneider, R. C. (2000). What high school principals expect of their athletics directors: A national investigation. The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 71(8), 45-49.

Submitted by: Kristina Bohnstedt & Norbert Müller

Introduction:

Ethical issues are coming to the fore in our society as a result of numerous problematic developments.

In addition to doping and profit orientation, child and teenage high-performance sport is a recurrent focus of discussions about ethical responsibility. The person’s responsible, particularly leading members of sports associations and sport scientists, must make their position clear and help parents to shed their fears.

In this connection, a specific ethic for trainers is increasingly being demanded. The German Sport Association responded to this demand in 1997 by publishing the “Code of Conduct for Trainers”.

As early as 1984, the sport educationalist MEINBERG (Cologne) formulated ethical principles for child and teenage high-performance sport, which have lost nothing of their importance. In fact, they are more important than ever in 2004, as a result of professionalization and media attention.

According to MEINBERG, an optimum approach to training children and teenagers in high-performance sport depends on the following ethical principles:

1. using another person as an end in themselves rather than a means to an end,
2. the principle of respect,
3. the principle of equality,
4. the principle of solidarity,
5. the principle of fairness,
6. the principle of suitability for children/teenagers,
7. the principle of reasonableness,
8. the principle of helping,
9. the principle of trust,
10. the principle of participation,
11. the principle of responsibility,
12. the principle of achievement – making no fetish of achievement,
13. a body ethic suitable for children/teenagers – not exploiting the body.

Aim of survey and methods

The paper investigates whether child and teenage high-performance athletes think that their trainers observe MEINBERG’s 13 ethical principles for a humane high-performance sport. The young high-performance athletes were asked to evaluate the implementation of ethical standards during daily training situations.

Research data were collected through a survey using a standardized questionnaire, which was filled in under supervision. The interviewees, aged between 14 and 19, attend sport-orientated schools in the German cities of Berlin, Erfurt, Kaiserslautern and Koblenz, and the House of Athletes at the Olympic Centre in Frankfurt/Main.

Results and interpretation

The sample survey

Altogether 181 young high-performance athletes participated in the survey, 80 of them female (44.2%) and 101 male (55.8%). 15.5% of the athletes belong to sports with a young high-performance age (e.g. gymnastics, figure skating, swimming), 30.9% to team sports (volleyball, handball, basketball, football) and 53.6% to various other sports (athletics, cycling, table tennis, rowing etc.).

Training in their main sport starts at the average age of 8.7, and 11.2 years is the average age for the start of high-performance training (daily training, regular competitions and training camps). The young athletes train at different training centers. Approximately 40% train at two centers. About half of the athletes are members of training groups at their sports club, at the Olympic training center and at their sport-orientated school. Thus, 52% of the athletes work with at least two different trainers, and 20.7% even with three. 27.6% of the athletes live in a full-time-boarding school, 11% attend a part-time-boarding school, and 61.3% live with their families. Irrespective of their living arrangements, 90.1% of the young athletes say that they have become more independent through high-performance training.

Before the survey, 65.0% of the athletes had already discussed practice-oriented ethical questions at school.

Given the age of the interviewees, it can be assumed that under normal circumstances they possess a sufficient capacity for ethical judgement. This would not be the case with children, but teenagers can be considered mature enough. Their involvement with high-performance sport may in the course of time affect their evaluation of trainer behavior and of their own situation.

The teenagers’ answers show, however, that they are able to critically judge both their own situation and the behavior of their trainers. The fact that the majority of interviewees pursue sports with a late high-performance age positively affects the starting age for high-performance training.

Olympic values in youth high-performance sport

The analysis focusses on the attitudes of young high-performance athletes. The questionnaire was intended to show whether the teenagers’ values, including their evaluation of trainer behavior, had already been influenced by their involvement with high-performance sport and the concomitant concentration on achievement. In addition, the teenagers’ general value systems were to be compared with the values conveyed by their trainers, and the values perceived in competitions.
The majority of interviewees above all want their main sport to teach them achievement-oriented values. At the top of the hierarchy of desirable values are

– ambition (93.4%),
– competitiveness (90.1%) and
– assertiveness (75.7%).

While fairness (68.5%),
– independence (65.7%),
– friendship (64.6%),
– health (47%) and
– willingness to take risks (44.2%) still play a fairly important role for the young athletes, they consider values like

– happiness (35.9%),
– honesty (27.6%),
– justice (27.1%) and
– equal opportunities (22.7%) to be less important.

It can be seen from the athletes’ answers that trainers tend to teach the achievement-oriented values much more frequently than the others.

An examination of correlations shows that – except for the values of ambition and justice – there is a statistically significant correlation between the athletes’ desire to learn these values through their main sport, and the frequency with which these values are taught by the trainer.

The assessment of values in competitions reveals an even stronger emphasis on achievement-oriented values. Thus, 98.8% of the athletes hold competitiveness and 95% hold ambition to be very important in competitions, while values such as justice and friendship play a secondary role

Since the young high-performance athletes prioritize achievement-oriented values, which they expect their main sport to teach them, and which they consider even more important in competitions, we must conclude that trainer behavior may likewise be assessed on the basis of the principle of achievement. This tendency seems to be further strengthened by the fact that the athletes consider those values to be particularly important which are taught most often by their trainers. Accordingly, in their moral assessment of trainer behavior, the athletes may be following the ethical standards of their trainers. The close connection between the values of trainers and athletes casts some doubt on the young high-performance athletes’ ability to judge their trainers’ behavior objectively and critically. However, it is not clear whether the values held by the athletes are shaped by the trainers or by parents or other factors such as personality. The data suggest that the interviewees judge the behavior of their trainers as well as their own situation from an achievement-oriented perspective.

The implementation of MEINBERG’s ethical principles using the example of trainer behavior

Questions concerning trainer behavior were intended to show whether, in dealing with the young athletes, the main trainer (i.e. the trainer with whom the athlete works most of the time) follows MEINBERG’s 13 ethical principles in order to ensure a humane high-performance sport. At the same time, the analysis examined possible connections between the implementation of these principles and factors such as the athletes’ gender, their particular school, their age or their main sport.

The most important results of the survey are shown in the following table:

Using another person as an end in themselves rather than a means to an end	My TRAINER wants me to win so that I can enjoy success.	61.3 %
My TRAINER accepts that my body cannot always achieve perfect results.	53.0 %
The principle of respect	My TRAINER is very often ready to listen to my wishes and fears.	52.5 %
My TRAINER always respects my opinion.	48.1 %
My TRAINER is sometimes ready to listen to my wishes and fears.	42.5 %
The principle of equality	My TRAINER sometimes asks me what I think.	54.7 %
My TRAINER listens to my criticism and responds to it.	53.3 %
My TRAINER very often asks me what I think.	30.9 %
The principle of solidarity	My TRAINER only reproaches me when there is a good reason.	82.3 %
My TRAINER never reproaches me when I am not successful.	9.4 %
My TRAINER always reproaches me when I am not successful.	8.3 %
My TRAINER critically examines both his/her own work and mine when I am not successful.	79.0 %
My TRAINER lays the entire blame on me when I am not successful.	14.9 %
My TRAINER also blames himself/herself when I am not successful.	6.1 %
The principle of fairness	My TRAINER is equally happy for all when they do well.	81.8 %
My TRAINER supports us all equally.	68.0 %
The principle of suitability for children/teenagers	My TRAINER knows how old I am and treats me accordingly.	84.0 %
My TRAINER involves me in more decisions as I grow older.	54.1 %
The principle of reasonableness	I never feel afraid during training.	76.8 %
I sometimes feel overtaxed during training.	68.0 %
The principle of helping	My TRAINER immediately tries to help me when I say I have a problem.	82.2 %
My TRAINER always listens to me when I have a problem.	66.7 %
The principle of trust	I very often trust my TRAINER.	70.7 %
My TRAINER makes all decisions together with me.	65.7 %
I sometimes discuss personal problems with my TRAINER.	50.8 %
I sometimes have a say in which competitions I enter.	40.3 %
The principle of responsibility	My TRAINER sometimes talks with my parents.	60.8 %
I take part in both team and individual competitions.	59.6 %
My TRAINER sometimes organizes activities outside training for us.	58.6 %
My TRAINER reduces the training load when there are many exams and I have problems at school.	54.1 %
My TRAINER sometimes helps me to make plans for school and for my career.	47.0 %
My TRAINER never helps me to make plans for school and for my career.	44.2 %
My TRAINER sometimes talks to my teachers in order to coordinate the demands of school and training.	41.7 %
My TRAINER never talks to my teachers in order to coordinate the demands of school and training.	38.3 %
My TRAINER never reduces the training load.	29.8 %
The principle of achievement – making no fetish of achievement	My main TRAINER is happy in competitions when I do well.	94.5 %
Our training is achievement-oriented and fun-oriented.	59.7 %
Our training is purely achievement-oriented.	40.3 %
A body ethic suitable for children/teenagers – not exploiting the body	When I am physically exhausted in training, I still have to carry on until the end of the training session.	44.2 %
When I am physically exhausted in training, I am allowed a short break during training.	43.6 %

In general, while the majority of trainers are largely guided by MEINBERG’s ethical principles in their work with the young high-performance athletes, a critical examination of individual principles also reveals some transgressions. The athletes noted incidences of behavior on the part of trainers which fall short of their ethical expectations and have to be considered problematic or irresponsible.

Correlations between the kind of sport and the degree of conformity with individual principles are rare. Sport-specific differences only occur with the implementation of the principle of equality, the principle of suitability for children/teenagers, the principle of participation and a body ethic suitable for children/teenagers.

As far as these principles are concerned, ethical boundaries are transgressed most frequently by trainers in team games. But a disregard of ethical principles by trainers working with young high-performance athletes can be found in all kinds of sport. This indicates that adherence to ethical principles depends on the individual personality of the trainer rather than on other factors.

More detailed results could be obtained by examining the implementation of these ethical principles in all kinds of youth high-performance sport on an even broader basis.

Conclusion

It has become clear that MEINBERG’s principles, while very theoretical and general, have a practical application and can be used for critically examining the behavior of trainers in different kinds of sport.

The teenagers’ assessment of their own situation and of individual problems shows that MEINBERG’s demands are realistic. The athletes most frequently criticize the disregard for individual principles on the part of trainers and coaching assistants.

The Olympic Movement must become more aware of its responsibility for the ethical and social conditions under which young athletes live and train. Surveys like the present one should therefore be conducted on a large international scale.

References

1. ABRAHAM, A.: Identitätsprobleme in der rhythmischen Sportgymnastik: Eine Untersuchung zur Auswirkung sportartspezifischer Identitätskonstitutionen auf die Identitätsfindung nach Beendigung der leistungssportlichen Laufbahn. Schorndorf 1986.
2. BETTE, K.-H.: Die Trainerrolle im Hochleistungssport. System- und rollentheoretische Überlegungen zur Sozialfigur des Trainers. St. Augustin 1984.
3. BETTE, K.-H.: Körperspuren: Zur Semantik und Paradoxie moderner Körperlichkeit. Berlin – New York 1989.
4. BETTE, K.-H./NEIDHARD, F.: Förderungseinrichtungen im Hochleistungssport – Strukturen und Probleme. Schorndorf 1985.
5. BRETTSCHNEIDER, W.-D./HEIM, R.: Heranwachsende im Hochleistungssport. In: Leistungssport 31 (2001) 4, 34-38.
6. BRETTSCHNEIDER, W.-D./RICHARTZ, A.: Jugendliche im Leistungssport – Entwicklung im Spannungsfeld von Schule und Sport. In: Leistungssport 26 (1996) 5, 6-10.
7. CACHAY, K./THIEL, A.: Sozialkompetenz für Trainerinnen und Trainer im Hochleistungssport. In: ANDERS, G./HARTMANN, W. (eds.): Sozialkompetenz von Trainerinnen und Trainern: Dokumentation des Workshops vom 28. September 1996. Cologne 1997, 11-28.
8. DEUTSCHER SPORTBUND (ed.): Kinder im Leistungssport. Grundsatzerklärung. In: Deutscher Sportbund 1982-1986. Bericht des Präsidiums. Frankfurt am Main 1986, 225-230.
9. DEUTSCHER SPORTBUND: Ehrenkodex für Trainerinnen und Trainer im Sport. In: ANDERS, G./HARTMANN, W. (eds.): Sozialkompetenz von Trainerinnen und Trainern: Dokumentation des Workshops vom 28. September 1996. Cologne 1997, 88-90.
10. DIGEL, H.: Ist der Hochleistungssport verantwortbar? In: Leistungssport 32 (2002) 1, 9-13.
11. FREI, P./LÜSEBRINK, I./ ROTTLÄNDER, D./THIELE, I.: Belastungen und Risiken im weiblichen Kunstturnen. Part 2: Innensichten, pädagogische Deutungen und Konsequenzen. Schorndorf 2000.
12. FUNKE, J.: Wie erfahren jugendliche Kunstturnerinnen ihren Hochleistungssport? In: Sportpädagogik 9 (1985) 5, 8-9.
13. HACKFORT, D.: Karriere im Sport – psychosoziale Aspekte eines Karrieremanagements. In: Leistungssport 31 (2001) 4, 55-58.
14. HEINEMANN, K.: Einführung in die Soziologie des Sports. Vol. 1. Schorndorf 19984.
15. HERMS, E.: Ist Sportethik möglich? In: DEUTSCHER SPORTBUND (ed.): Die Zukunft des Sports. Schorndorf 1996, 84-110.
16. HOTZ, A.: Klippen für ein Nachwuchstalent auf dem Weg zur Weltspitze. In: Leistungssport 28 (1998) 1, 29-30.
17. HOTZ, A.: “Doping und Ethik” – ein Thema mit Tradition und offenbar ohne Ende! In: Leistungssport 33 (2003) 1, 17-22.
18. KAMINSKI, G./MAYER, R./RUOFF, B. A.: Kinder und Jugendliche im Hochleistungssport. Schorndorf 1984.
19. KURZ, D. (with BINZ, C./KUHLMANN, D.): Pädagogische Grundlagen des Trainings. Schorndorf 1988.
20. LENK, H.: Aspekte einer Pragmatisierung der Ethik – auch für die Sportethik. In: CACHAY, K. et al. (eds.): Sport und Ethik. Clausthal-Zellerfeld 1985, 1-20.
21. LÜSEBRINK, I.: Lebenswelten von Kunstturnerinnen. Sankt Augustin 1997.
22. MEINBERG, E.: Kinderhochleistungssport: Fremdbestimmung oder Selbstentfaltung? Cologne 1984.
23. MEINBERG, E.: Sportethik/Moral des Sports. In: GRUPE, O./MIETH, D. (eds.): Lexikon der Ethik im Sport. Schorndorf 1998, 498-504.
24. MEINBERG, E.: Trainerethos und Trainerethik. Cologne 2001.
25. MÜLLER, N.: Olympische Erziehung. In: GRUPE, O./MIETH, D. (eds.): Lexikon der Ethik im Sport. Schorndorf 1998, 385-395.English translation on the homapge CEO Barcelona.
26. MÜLLER, N.: Olympismus. In: RÖTHIG, P./PROHL, R. (eds.): Sportwissenschaftliches Lexikon. 7th ed., Schorndorf, Hofmann, 2004, 414-416.
27. MÜLLER,N. (red.). Fair play for all. Declaration on Fair play. Paris: International Fair Play Committee, 1991.
    OERTER, R.: Hochleistungssport unter entwicklungspsychologischer Perspektive. In: Leistungssport 12 (1982) 1, 6-12.
    OTT, K.: Ethische Ansätze. In: GRUPE, O./MIETH, D. (eds.): Lexikon der Ethik im Sport. Schorndorf 1998, 131-142.
28. PATSANTARAS, N.: Trainer(in)/Training/Trainerethos. In: GRUPE, O./MIETH, D. (eds.): Lexikon der Ethik im Sport. Schorndorf 1998, 566-569.
29. RICHARTZ, A.: Jugendliche Leistungssportler im Internat – typische Beziehungsmuster und ihre pädagogische Bedeutung. In: Leistungssport 28 (1998) 1, 12-17.
30. ROSE, L.: Das Drama des begabten Mädchens. Lebensgeschichten junger Kunstturnerinnen. Weinheim – Munich 1991.
31. WEBER, M.: Politik als Beruf. In: WINKELMANN, J. (ed.): Gesammelte politische Schriften. Tübingen 1971, 505-560.
32. WEISCHENBERG, K.: Kindheit im modernen Kinderhochleistungssport. Untersuchungen zur alltäglichen Lebensumwelt von C- und D- Kader Athletinnen im Kunstturnen auf der Grundlage eines konkreten Kindheitsverständnisses. Frankfurt am Main – Berlin – Bern – New York – Paris – Vienna 1996.

Submitted by: Michael J. Lovaglia & Jeffrey W. Lucas

Introduction:

Why are athletic programs such a prominent part of higher education in the United States? Lately, educators have been questioning the value of a connection between high-visibility athletic programs and the academic mission of higher education (Sperber 2003). Do high-visibility athletic programs add value to a university education?

We conducted a study to test the idea that high-visibility athletic programs at major public universities can increase the prestige of their academic programs. That is, a high-visibility athletic program may increase the value of a university’s degree, increasing the prestige of its graduates in general. If so, then increased university prestige may provide an explanation for the growth of university athletic programs and their prominent role in higher education.

As the budgets for high-visibility athletic programs at major universities grow ever larger, common explanations for the increase have not been supported by empirical evidence. The competition among university athletic programs has been likened to an “arms race” as major universities strive to avoid being left behind. Why universities continue to increase their athletic budgets, however, has been difficult to explain. Research fails to support the common assumption that the substantial revenue from ticket sales, TV contracts, and apparel endorsements brought in by high-visibility athletic programs helps to support their universities. Nor has it been demonstrated that bigger athletic budgets increase alumni donations.

The NCAA commissioned a study (Litan, Orszag and Orszag 2003) to investigate the effects of increasing budgets for university athletic programs. The study found little evidence for several common explanations for increasing athletic budgets. Rather than contribute revenue to general university operations, high visibility athletic programs are revenue neutral. That is, big-time university athletic programs cost their universities about as much money as they generate. Litan, Orzag and Orzag (2003) found that an additional dollar spent on a Division I-A football or basketball program produces about the same amount of increased revenue to the university. Moreover, winning programs are no more likely to contribute net revenue to the university than are losing programs (Sheehan 2000). In addition, Litan, Orzag and Orzag (2003) found no relationship between increased budgets and alumni contributions. Shulman and Bowen (2001, p. 257) examined in detail a wide variety of athletic programs at universities and colleges. They concluded, “Whatever the other benefits of athletic programs are, or are perceived to be, the pursuit of net revenues is very difficult to accept as a justification.”

Anecdotal evidence suggests that winning athletic programs increase the number and quality of student applicants to universities. This justification for the growth in athletic budgets has been labeled the “Flutie effect” after a dramatic increase in student applications at Boston College in the years immediately following quarterback Doug Flutie’s Heisman Trophy. The spike in student applications was short-lived as applications returned to earlier levels along with the performance of the football team after Flutie’s graduation, further suggesting that the football team’s success was responsible for increased student applications. Further, increased student applications could affect academic quality by allowing universities selectively to admit better students. Thus, there could be a positive relationship between a university’s athletic success and its academic quality, at least theoretically. While Litan, Orzag and Orzag (2003) found no relationship between increased athletic expenditures and academic quality, considerable evidence supports the idea that athletic success increases student applications (Murphy and Trandel 1994, Zimbalist 1999).

We propose that students prefer universities with high-visibility athletic programs in part because they associate increased prestige with academic degrees from those schools. If so, then the prestige rank that students assign to value of academic degrees from major public universities will correspond to the visibility of the universities’ athletic programs.

PRESTIGE RANKING OF UNIVERSITIES

We asked undergraduate students in introductory classes at the University of Iowa to rank states based on the prestige of graduates from the states’ main public universities. Although to some extent a convenience sample, the wide variety of students who take introductory sociology are particularly appropriate for this study. Because they recently had to make a decision about which university to attend, it is likely that the relative prestige of various universities is more salient to them than to the average person. We do not expect that students are consciously aware of objective criteria for ranking state prestige. Rather, we created an indicator to assess the students’ general impressions of the prestige of various states with particular reference to contributions of their public university graduates to society:

“Please think about the main state university in each state. Then rank each state based on how important you feel its main state university is and how valuable the graduates of those universities are to the success of U.S. society.”

Students then examined a column of 19 states presented in alphabetical order. States were chosen to provide a range of universities from various regions and with athletic programs of varying visibility:

Alabama, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina

Athletics was not mentioned during the study. Rather, the study was presented as an investigation of how effectively states support higher education.

A total of 479 students ranked each state from 1 to 19 with 1 indicating the most valuable graduates and 19 the least valuable graduates. We calculated mean student rankings for each state and then used those means as one variable in a data set where each state represented one case.

RATING ATHLETIC PROGRAM VISIBILITY

Two coders familiar with university athletics rated the visibility of the athletic programs of the major university in each state on the list. The coders’ independent ratings were based on the following instructions:

Consider the main public university in each state. If a state has more than one major public university, pick the university with the most prominent athletic program. Then indicate the national visibility of that university’s athletic program using the following codes.

Rate the state university athletic program:

1. 1 if it has a major football or basketball program familiar to most adults in the United States.
2. 2 if it has a football or basketball program familiar to intercollegiate sports fans but not more generally.
3. 3 if it has minimal visibility football and basketball programs.

The two coders’ ratings corresponded exactly for 14 of the 19 states. Ratings were averaged for the remaining 5 states.

OTHER STATE FACTORS THAT MIGHT AFFECT PRESTIGE

A number of state characteristics might influence the prestige of public university graduates. We gathered data from a U.S. Census Bureau website,
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/, for the following variables:

• State Population Size (natural log): States with larger populations may seem more important and have more resources to devote to higher education, potentially leading to higher university prestige.
• State Per Capita Annual Income (in thousands of dollars): States with wealthier residents may seem more important and prestigious.
• Mean Higher Education Level (% of state residents over age 25 with at least a bachelor’s degree): Higher education may seem more prestigious in states with more highly educated citizens.

We also included variables to control for geographical region and the order in which states were presented to participants.

PREDICTION

We predicted a positive relationship between the visibility of a state university’s athletic program and the prestige of that state university’s graduates. If high visibility athletic programs at public universities increase a state’s prestige, then the graduates of those universities should be highly ranked in terms of their importance to society.

RESULTS

Table 1 lists means and standard deviations for the variables used in the multivariate analysis.

Table 1

<th”>Variable <th”>Mean <th”>SD

Variables Used to Analyze State Prestige Rank, N = 19.
State Prestige Rank	8.63	3.99
Log State Population	15.49	.92
Income Per Capita ($1000’s)	20.79	3.14
% Highly Educated	22.63	3.93
Region Northeast (4 states) Midwest (4 states) West (5 states) South (6 states)	2.68	1.16
Athletic Program Visibility Highly visible (9 states) Somewhat Visible (6 states) Little Visibility (4 states)	1.63	.72
Order Presented First 6 states Middle 7 states Last 6 states	2.00	.82

Table 2 presents the results of regression analysis with State Prestige Rank as the dependent variable.

Table 2

<th”>Variable <th”>B <th”>SE <th”>p

Regression Coefficients Predicting State Prestige Rank, N = 19.
Order Presented	-3.30	.86	.002
Log State Population	-2.22	.68	.007
Income Per Capita ($1000)	– .30	.38	.455
% Highly Educated	– .40	.25	.138
Region	– .64	.70	.378
Athletic Program Visibility	2.54	.91	.016

R2 = .788
Adjusted R2 = .682

R2 was relatively high for an analysis of this type indicating that the predictor variables explain most of the variation in State Prestige Rank. A high R2 increases confidence that a missing variable is not a better predictor of State Prestige Rank than those included in the analysis.

Two of the control variables, Order Presented and Log State Population, had p-values that suggest a significant relationship with prestige. The order in which states appeared on the form presented to participants had a negative relationship with State Prestige Rank (B = -3.30). Log State Population also had a significant negative coefficient (B = -2.22) indicating that states with larger populations were ranked higher in prestige than those with smaller populations.

In support of the study’s main prediction, the coefficient for Athletic Program Visibility (B = 2.54) is positive and significant (p = .016) indicating that states with highly visible university athletic programs were rated as having university graduates who made more important contributions to society.

DISCUSSION

The results of our study supported the prediction that a high-visibility athletic program can enhance the prestige of a university’s graduates. The result is potentially important because it connects the visibility of university athletic programs to the prestige of their academic programs, a connection that has been seen as tenuous at best (Bowen and Levin 2003).

The study has limitations that should be noted. First, the prestige rankings for public universities are restricted to a sample of students at the University of Iowa. While the prestige of universities may be particularly salient to them, data from students at different universities as well as from non-students would improve confidence in the results. Second, the ranking exercise turned out to be cognitively challenging. The effect of presentation order suggests that more research is needed to determine how students went about the task. Third, several variables have too few categories to be considered properly continuous. The results, however, hold up well using alternative categorical analyses and non-parametric statistics sensitive to ranked data (available from the authors).

Why do high-visibility athletic programs enhance academic prestige? The idea seems counterintuitive. Certainly some the highest prestige universities in the United States, Harvard, Yale, and University of Chicago for example, do not emphasize their athletic programs. But it may not be the case that these high prestige institutions gain prestige from their neglect of high-visibility athletics. Rather, they may have had a historical prestige advantage that allowed them to opt out of the athletic arms race. Perhaps because of their position as elite academic institutions, they can afford not to compete athletically.

REFERENCES

1. Bowen, W.G. and S. A. Levin. 2003. Reclaiming the Game: College Sports and Educational Values. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
2. Litan, R. E., J. M. Orszag and P. R. Orszag (2003). The Empirical Effects of Collegiate Athletics: An Interim Report. National Collegiate Athletic Association.
3. Murphy, R. G., G. T. Trandel (1994). “The relation between a university’s football record and the size of its applicant pool.” Economics of Education Review, 13, 383-387.
4. Shulman, J. L. and W. G. Bowen (2001). The Game of Life: College Sports and Educational Values. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
5. Sperber, M. 2000. Beer and Circus: How Big-Time College Sports Is Crippling Undergraduate Education. New York: Henry Holt.
6. Zimbalist, A. (1999). Unpaid Professionals: Commercialism and Conflict in Big-Time College Sports. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Submitted by: Mark McDowell, Ph. D., Michael V. Ciocco, Ph.D. & Bryan Morreale

Abstract

In the past few years, there has been a composite bat construction revolution in the softball bat industry. While composite material bats have enabled softball bat performance to increase much to the delight of hitters, they can pose a significant safety risk to defensive players and especially the pitcher. A controlled experiment using two composite softball and two wooden softball bat models has been conducted in order to present experimental data on the field performance of various bat/ball combinations. Three types of softballs were used in this study; low-compression, cork-centered softballs, mid-compression polyurethane softballs and high-compression polyurethane softballs ranging from 1134 to 2389 N/0.64 cm (255 to 537 lbs/0.25 in) compression. Three experienced softball players were chosen as test subjects for this study. Initial batted-ball velocities ranged from 126.2 to 164.3 km/h (78.4 to 102.1 mph), corresponding to an available pitcher reaction time ranging from 0.456 to 0.350 seconds. The goal of this study is to present the potential safety and injury risks associated with using composite softball bats in the sport of softball.

Introduction

Over the past few years, the sport of softball has undergone a revolution in bat construction. When the sport was originated, wood was the major construction material of softball bats. In the 1980s, softball bats constructed from aluminum-based materials were introduced followed by titanium-based bats in the mid-1990s. However, the excessive batted-ball velocities (BBV) resulting from the use of titanium-based bats led to them being declared illegal and unsafe by all of the major governing bodies of softball due to their increased injury potential. From the late 1990s to the present, bats constructed of composite materials are the most commonly used bats and have been responsible for countless injures and even fatalities in the sport (Dawson, R., 2003). Composite softball bats are currently being used at all levels of softball from fast pitch softball in the Olympics, collegiate and high school levels to the recreational weekday slow-pitch softball league. Although there are over 19 million softball players in the U.S. (Ramsey J. and Smith G., 2003), there is no national database on injuries and fatalities in the sport and this complicates the issue of establishing a national safety standard for the sport of softball.

The authors have conducted a batted-ball field test study using three different compression ranges of softballs in order to show the potential risks involved when using wood and composite softball bats by measuring the BBV for each of the bat/ball combinations and using these speeds to calculate the time a pitcher has to react to a batted-ball, which the authors call available pitcher reaction time (APRT).

Method

A field study to analyze composite and wood softball bat performance using three different softball compression values was conducted. Three experienced softball players with an average height of 1.85 m (6 ft, 1 in) and weight of 99.8 kg (220 lbs) were chosen as subjects for this study and were required to record over twenty-five BBV measurements with each bat-ball combination over five test rounds. In each round, at least five recorded hits out of a maximum of seven from each tester was recorded in order to minimize fatigue. In addition, there was a mandatory minimum five-minute rest period between each round. In order to be considered a valid test, the standard deviation of the top five (20%) BBV readings from each bat-ball combination had to be within 3.9 km/h (2.4 mph) based on a statistical margin of error at the 95% confidence level.

Softballs

All softballs were compression-tested according to the ASTM standard for ball testing (ASTM F 1888-02, 2002). Ball compression is defined as the amount of force necessary to compress a softball 0.64 cm (0.25 in) and is measured in N/0.64 cm (lbs/0.25 in). Three different softball models with compression values ranging from 1134 to 2389 N/0.64 cm (255 to 537lbs/0.25 in) were chosen for this study (sixty balls per model). All softballs were purchased from retail sporting goods stores and are listed in Table 1.

Softball Bats

The composite bats chosen for the study were an 850 g (30 oz) EastonÒ Synergy+ and a 794 g (28 oz) MikenÒ Freak model. The wooden bats chosen were an 850 g (30 oz) TPSÒ and an 850 g (30 oz) BWPÒ Maple model. These bats were selected due to their popularity amongst recreational softball players and were purchased from retail sporting goods stores.

Batted-ball velocity measurements

A Jugs® professional radar gun having an accuracy to within 0.8 km/h (0.5 mph) was used to measure BBV. Before each round, the Jugs® radar gun was calibrated using a certified 98.2 km/h (61 mph) K-band tuning fork. Readings were taken approximately halfway between the batter’s impact point and the pitcher’s mound.

Pitching

A Jugs® Professional softball pitching machine capable of accurately and reliably pitching a softball in the 26 to 40 km/h (16 to 25 mph) range through the hitting zone was used. This range was used in order to simulate the actual pitch speeds that occur in a slow-pitch softball game.

Available Pitcher Reaction Time: Using the fact the pitcher’s mound in slow-pitch softball is 15.24 m (50 ft) away from home-plate; the available pitcher reaction time (APRT) for a particular bat-ball combination can be calculated once the BBV is recorded. The APRT is a safety metric that can be used to determine if a bat-ball combination is considered safe or unsafe. As a general rule, the higher the BBV’s, the lower the APRT’s, and thus, the higher the risk of injury.

Results

The initial BBV and APRT data is listed in Tables 2 through Table 6. The initial BBV using cork-centered, mid- and high-compression softballs using the wooden softball bats ranged from 126.0 to 136.8 km/h (78.3 to 85.0 mph), which translates into an available pitcher reaction time ranging from 0.456 to 0.421 seconds. The initial BBV using cork-centered, mid- and high-compression softballs using the composite softball bats ranged from 143.5 to 164.3 km/h (89.2 to 102.1 mph), which translates into an available pitcher reaction time ranging from 0.401 to 0.350 seconds. It should be noted that at the time of this study, the two largest softball associations, the United States Specialty Sports Association (USSSA) and the Amateur Softball Association (ASA) of America mandated that any bat achieving an initial BBV of 137.2 km/h (85.2 mph), which translates into an APRT of 0.420 seconds (USSSA, 2003), (ASA, 2003) is considered unsafe. Based on our data, the composite bats would be considered unsafe for all balls tested while the wooden softball bats would be considered safe for all balls tested.

Discussion and Implications

The main finding of this study is that unsafe batted-ball velocities were achieved using composite softballs bats. The initial BBV of the composite bats were as much as 27.2 km/h (16.9 mph) higher than the softball association’s goal of 137.2 km/h (85.2 mph), which translates into an available pitcher reaction time of 0.420 seconds. However, very little research has been done with respect to quantifying how much time a pitcher, or any player for that matter, needs to safely defend themselves from a batted ball. To date, there have been three published studies in the sport of baseball using ball exit speeds and APRT.

A recent study [Nicholls, et al., 2003] investigated player safety concerning ball exit speed for the sport of baseball and concluded that the maximum safe initial batted-ball velocity that a pitcher can react to is approximately 148 km/h (92 mph), which translates into an APRT of 0.425 seconds. They also concluded that a “certified” metal bat swung by an experienced hitter may produce ball exit velocities exceeding that demonstrated by a robotic hitting machine, which is currently used for establishing safe batted-ball velocities. A second study [Owings, et al., 2003] was conducted investigating the available pitcher reaction time as a consideration in design constraints for baseballs and baseball bats for various age groups. They found that for the 16-year age group, a minimum reaction time of 0.409sec. is necessary to reduce the potential for serious or catastrophic injury. A third study conducted by the NCAA tested a variety of bats on a specially designed batting machine located at the University of Massachusetts in Lowell, [Mississippi State University, 2002]. The recommendation from this study was to drop the exit speed to no more than 149.7 km/h (93 mph) in collegiate baseball, which translates into an APRT of 0.420 seconds.

Two recent studies [Hultsch, et al., 2002] and [Luchies, et al., 2002] address the differences in reaction time between younger and older adults and conclude that reaction time is considerably reduced or varied as a person gets older. Using this research on reaction time and the results of Nicholls and Owings, it can be theorized that when composite bats are in use and a ball is hit directly back at the pitcher or infielder, this can pose a significant risk for injury to older adults which comprise the majority of the millions of recreational softball players.

The results from the composite bat data show that none of the average pitcher response times are slower than the published results for the sport of baseball. In fact the worst case, composite/high-compression ball/BT3, has an APRT of 0.357 sec., which is over 18% lower than the suggested value of 0.425 sec.

For the wooden bat, for all the balls, the APRTs are very close to or better than those suggested by published baseball studies. The lowest APRT is 0.421 sec. and the highest is 0.457 sec. When compared to the wooden softball bats, the composite bats outperform them by as much as 30% which should at least lead to a meaningful discussion on the safety of the sport.

The implications of this study are that the use of composite softball bats is creating an unnecessary safety risk for players and that many players, coaches, league directors and parents are probably not aware of the risk associated with the use of composite softball bats.

Conclusions

A controlled field-test study analyzing the performance of composite and wooden softball bats along with using low-, mid- and high-compression softballs was conducted in order to analyze the various bat/ball combinations. Batted-ball velocity was measured and available pitcher response time calculated and compared to recommended safety limits imposed on the sport as well as published baseball safety studies. The results from this study concluded that using composite softball bats, batted-ball velocities exceeded the recommended safety limits by as much as 27.2 km/h (16.9 mph) or 0.070 seconds. It can be concluded that regardless of the ball used, composite bats may pose an increased safety risk to defensive players, especially the pitcher, in the path of a batted-ball hit.

References

1. Amateur Softball Association of America (2003). ASA Bat Testing Procedure (ASA 2000). URL: http://www.softball.org
2. ASTM F 1888-02 (2002). Standard Test Method for Compression-Displacement of baseballs and Softballs. ASTM International.
3. Dawson, R. (2003). Blinding Speed. WISH TV-8, Indianapolis.
   URL:http://www.wishtv.com/Global/story.asp?s=%20%201274912.
4. Hultsch, D. F., S. W. MacDonald and R. A. Dixon. 2002. Variability in reaction time performance of younger and older adults. The Journals of Gerontology, Series B 57(2): 101.
5. Luchies, C. W., J. Schiffman, L. G. Richards, M. R. Thompson, D. Bazuin, and A. J. DeYoung. 2002. Effects of age, step direction, and reaction condition on the ability to step quickly. The Journals of Gerontology, Series A 57(4): M246.
6. Mississippi State University (2002). Study helps give pitchers more time to react. University Relations News Bureau. URL: http://msuinfo.ur.msstate.edu/msu_memo/1999/02-08-99/bats.htm
7. Nicholls, R.L., Elliot, B.C., Miller, K. and Koh, M. (2003). Bat Kinematics in Baseball: Implications for Ball Exit Velocity and Player Safety. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 19, 283-294.
8. Owings, T. M., Lancianese, S. L., Lampe, E. M., and Grabiner, M. D. Influence of Ball Velocity, Attention, and Age on Response Time for a Simulated Catch. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., 2003, Vol. 35, No. 8, pp. 1397-1405.
9. Ramsey J. and Smith G. (2003). Serious Slow-pitch Softball. Florida: Softball Magazine
10. United States Specialty Sports Association (2003). Bat Performance Factor Test. URL: http://www.usssa.com