The purpose of this study was to determine if NCAA Division I-A football program success had a relationship to student-athlete graduation rates. Graduation rate data for 2001 were obtained from the NCAA and cumulative five-year records of selected NCAA Division I-A football programs determined winning percentage for the years 1996-2000. The data were examined by correlating the two variables of winning percentage and graduation rate. The findings show no significant correlation at a probability level of .05. The results of this study indicate the success of a football programs do not have any relationship to low football team graduation rates. Therefore, other factors such as athletic department ideals, commercialization of sport, or the preconceived notion that collegiate football athletes are only enrolled to compete in football may play a factor in graduation rates among NCAA Division I-A football players.
The purpose of this study was to determine if NCAA Division I-A football program success had a relationship to student-athlete graduation rates. Graduation rate data for 2001 were obtained from the NCAA and cumulative five-year records of selected NCAA Division I-A football programs determined winning percentage for the years 1996-2000. The data were examined by correlating the two variables of winning percentage and graduation rate. The findings show no significant correlation at a probability level of .05. The results of this study indicate the success of a football programs do not have any relationship to low football team graduation rates. Therefore, other factors such as athletic department ideals, commercialization of sport, or the preconceived notion that collegiate football athletes are only enrolled to compete in football may play a factor in graduation rates among NCAA Division I-A football players.
The results of this study provided support for the ongoing use of the NCAA Academic Performance Program (APP) in promoting the academic success and persistence of NCAA Division I FBS college student-athletes. Recommendations were made for NCAA policy changes that might further improve the GSR of Division I FBS college student-athletes and for further research that examines and evaluates the connections between all the perceived problems of college athletics in a sociological and comprehensive context.
Data is presented on: (1) Comparison of GSR and Federal Graduation Rate Cohorts (1999-2002 Entering Classes); (2) Average GSRs for Division I Student-Athletes in 1998-01 Cohorts Vs. 1999-2002 Cohorts; (3) Graduation Success Rate Trends for Division I Men's Sports: Four-Class Averages for 1998-01 Cohorts vs. 1999-02 Cohorts; (4) Graduation Success Rate Trends for Division I Women's Sports: Four-Class Averages for 1998-01 Cohorts vs. 1999-02 Cohorts; (5) Graduation Success Rate Trends for Division I Men's Sports: 1995 to 2002 Entering Cohorts; (6) Graduation Success Rate Trends for Division I Women's Sports: 1995 to 2002 Entering Cohorts; (7) Graduation Success Rates of All Student-Athletes at Division I Institutions; (8) Graduation Success Rates of All Student-Athletes at Division I Institutions by Gender; (9) Graduation Success Rates of All Student-Athletes Division I Institutions by Ethnicity; (10) Eight-Year Trends in GSR for Division I Men's Basketball and Baseball, and FBS Football: 1995-2002; (11) Eight--Year Trends in GSR for Division I Women's Basketball, Softball and Volleyball 1995-2002; (12) Federal Graduation Rate Trends for Division I Men's Sports: Four-Class Averages for 1998-01 Cohorts vs. 1999-02 Cohorts; (13) Federal Graduation Rate Trends for Division I Women's Sports: Four-Class Averages for 1998-01 Cohorts vs. 1999-02 Cohorts; (14) Federal Graduation Rate Trends for Division I Men's Sports 1995 to 2002 Entering Cohorts; (15) Federal Graduation Rate Trends for Division I Women's Sports: 1995 to 2002 Entering Cohorts; and (16) Eight-Year Trends in Federal Rate and GSR for Student Body and Student-Athletes in Division I: 1995-2002.
Intercollegiate sports is an enterprise that annually grosses over $1 billion in income. Some schools may receive more than $20 million from athletic programs, perhaps as much as $10 million simply from the sale of football tickets. Drawing on nontechnical economic data, the authors present a persuasive case that the premier sports organization of colleges and universities in the United States--the NCAA--is a cartel, its members engaged in classically defined restrictive practices for the sole purpose of jointly maximizing their profits. This fresh perspective on the NCAA offers explanations of why illicit payments to athletes persist, why non-NCAA organizations have not flourished, and why members have readily agreed on certain suspect rules. Tracing the historical development of this institutional behavior, the authors argue that the major football powers in the early 1950s were able to gain control of the internal processes of NCAA enforcement. Over time--as other schools' teams improved and began to win on the playing field--the more powerful institutions applied pressure to bring the newcomers under NCAA investigation and, ultimately, to place them on probation. By carefully managing NCAA enforcement regulations, major schools blunted the threat to their continued growth presented by other teams. Offering a valuable case study for sports analysts and students of economics and cartel behavior, this book is a revealing glimpse inside the embattled NCAA.
There are numerous books documenting the challenges of student athletes and presenting recommendations for academic success. They primarily focus on understanding the issues of student-athletes and recommendations are oftentimes overly simplistic, failing to explicitly provide interventions that can be executed by student-athlete support personnel. In addition, the topic of supporting student-athletes who are academically at risk and/or are diagnosed with high incidence disabilities has been overlooked by scholars resulting in few publications specifically focusing on providing strategies to the staff/personnel who serve these populations. The general target audience is college/university practitioners who interface with student-athletes who demonstrate academic and social risk in the realm of athletics. These stakeholders include but are not limited to: academic support staff, student athletes, parents, coaches, faculty/educators, counselors, psychologists, higher education administrators, student affairs professionals, disability services coordinators/personnel, as well as researchers who focus on education leadership, sports, and special education. All of these groups are likely to find this book attractive especially as they work with student-athletes who are at-risk for academic failure. Also, it is ventured that this book will become the staple text for the National Association of Academic Advisors (N4A), the official organization for all personnel who work in collegiate academic support and can be used by members of intercollegiate athletic associations to reform policies in place to support at-risk student-athletes.
In 2004, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) adopted legislation that it hoped would help increase the graduation rates of student athletes. The Academic Progress Rating (APR), was designed to hold each individual athletic program accountable for keeping student athletes eligible and at the institution until the student athlete graduates. With this reform the NCAA attached land mark discipline measures for non compliance of the APR standards. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact that the APR has had on NCAA college football programs. Specifically, this study focused on assessing coaches' and directors of football operations' (DFOs) responses to questions regarding the issues of contention by football coaches and DFOs that lie within the APR legislation and how this legislation has changed their recruiting and retention strategies. The 234 DFOs and coaches that serve in that position at NCAA Division I institutions were chosen as subjects for this study. They were asked to complete a survey containing questions about how the APR has changed their program's recruiting and retention strategy. In addition, they were asked how the APR has affected their program's graduation rate, amount of resources they and their athletic department have dedicated to academics, and the amount of transfers they have coming into and leaving their program, due to the APR. These responses were then analyzed to see if there were any differences among BCS automatic bid conferences and non-BCS automatic bid conferences. The results indicated that there was no significant difference between BCS and non-BCS programs in terms of retention and recruiting strategies due to the APR legislation. However, results did indicate that 45.6% of Division I college football programs changed their recruiting strategy. Of the respondents, 56.3% are slightly less, less, or extremely less likely to recruit prospects that are potential discipline problems. In addition, 64.1% of football programs were slightly less, less, or extremely less likely to recruit academically challenged prospects. While 45.7% of programs said they were slightly less, less or extremely less likely to recruit special admittance prospects. In terms of retention, 48.6% of football programs indicated that they were slightly more, more, or extremely more likely to retain discipline problems due to the APR. When faced with a student athlete that has convicted a misdemeanor, 17.5% of football programs responded they were slightly more likely or more likely to retain the student athlete. Other results from this survey showed that 66% of football programs and 75.7% of athletic departments have increased either money or resources to their academic budgets because of the APR legislation. Responses also implied that 61.1% of football programs were slightly more likely, more, or were extremely more likely to monitor class attendance due to the APR legislation. The results also indicated that 83.5% of football programs feel they have graduated more student athletes since the inception of the APR. Additionally, 28.2% of football programs stated that they have more student athletes transferring out of their program than into the program.
A critical look at the tension between the larger role of the university and the commercialization of college sports Unwinding Madness is the most comprehensive examination to date of how the NCAA has lost its way in the governance of intercollegiate athletics—and why it is incapable of achieving reform and must be replaced. The NCAA has placed commercial success above its responsibilities to protect the academic primacy, health and well-being of college athletes and fallen into an educational, ethical, and economic crisis. As long as intercollegiate athletics reside in the higher education environment, these programs must be academically compatible with their larger institutions, subordinate to their educational mission, and defensible from a not-for-profit organizational standpoint. The issue has never been a matter of whether intercollegiate athletics belongs in higher education as an extracurricular offering. Rather, the perennial challenge has been how these programs have been governed and conducted. The authors propose detailed solutions, starting with the creation of a new national governance organization to replace the NCAA. At the college level, these proposals will not diminish the revenue production capacity of sports programs but will restore academic integrity to the enterprise, provide fairer treatment of college athletes with better health protections, and restore the rights and freedoms of athletes, which have been taken away by a professionalized athletics mentality that controls the cost of its athlete labor force and overpays coaches and athletic directors. Unwinding Madness recognizes that there is no easy fix to the problems now facing college athletics. But the book does offer common sense, doable solutions that respect the rights of athletes, protects their health and well-being while delivering on the promise of a bona fide educational degree program.
This monograph explores and discusses issues related to student-athletes with emphasis on entering student-athletes, and on development of programs to facilitate positive relationships between student-athletes and their universities. Following an introduction by the editor, the included chapters are: (1) "An Interview with Mike McGee" (Betsy O. Barefoot); (2) "Counseling the Collegiate Student-Athlete: History, Problems, and Possible Innovations" (Tim Fields); (3) "Self-Efficacy: A Tool for Providing Effective Support Services for Student-Athletes" (Jutta Street); (4) "Essential Components for Successful Collaboration between Coaches and Athletic Academic Advisors" (Pam Wuestenberg); (5) "Student-Athlete Welfare or 'Welfare'?" (Daniel Boggan, Jr.); (6) "NCAA CHAMPS/Life Skills Program: Results of the Help-Seeking Survey Research Project" (Meg Murray); (7) "History of the NCAA CHAMPS/Life Skills Program" (Emily Ward); (8) "The Impact of NCAA Propositions 48 and 16 on the Academic Preparation and Graduation Rates of Student-Athletes" (Jerry L. Kingston); (9) "Community/Junior College Transfer Student-Athletes: Ethics, Integrity, and the Second First-Year Experience" (Karl Mooney); (10) "The First-Year Female Student-Athlete: Characteristics and Interventions" (Carol A. Gruber); and (11) "Race and College Sports: A Long Way To Go" (Richard E. Lapchick). (Individual chapters contain references.) (DB)
