1 / 70

Having additional money is the biggest concern among Division I student-athletes

Myths and Realities about Intercollegiate Athletics – What Research Tells Us September 2014 1A FAR Annual Meeting Dr. Thomas Paskus, NCAA Research Dr. David Clough, University of Colorado. Having additional money is the biggest concern among Division I student-athletes.

nora
Download Presentation

Having additional money is the biggest concern among Division I student-athletes

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Myths and Realities about Intercollegiate Athletics –What Research Tells UsSeptember 20141A FAR Annual MeetingDr. Thomas Paskus, NCAA Research Dr. David Clough, University of Colorado

  2. Having additional money is the biggest concern among Division I student-athletes

  3. If you could change one thing about your SA experience…

  4. Transfer in men’s basketball is exploding and typically involves big programs poaching players from smaller programs

  5. 2012-13 Transfer Composition of Division I Student-Athlete Population (Sorted by % of 4-Year College Transfers in APR Cohort)

  6. Trends in the Proportion of Men’s Basketball Transfers in Division I APR Cohorts Notes: Analyses based on 323 men’s basketball squads that sponsored the sport within Division I during all 10 years.

  7. Directional Movement of Transfers(2013 MBB SAs on the ESPN Division I Transfer List) Direction of the 380 known transfer destinations Direction determined mainly by division & conference

  8. Directional Movement Among MBB Players who Transferred within Division I Up-transfer eligibility (N=34) 47% graduate students 38% undergrads, sitting out 2013-14 season 8% waiver pending 6% waiver granted

  9. Drug use and drinking by student-athletes is rampant relative to the general student population

  10. Marijuana Use by Sport (Men)

  11. Prescription Pain Medication (Use Within the Last 12 Months)

  12. You can’t believe the NCAA’s graduation rates– their numbers are distorted.

  13. Federal Graduation Rate:Thumbs Up or Thumbs Down?

  14. Adjusted Graduation Gap (AGG) • See Eckard (2010), NCAA athlete graduation rates: Less than meets the eye, Journal of Sport Management. • Key assumptions: • Whereas student-athletes in the federal graduation rate cohort are required to remain full-time, many members of the federal student body cohort revert to part-time status. • SB rate adjusted up, SA rate not adjusted. SB frequently drops to part-time status at D1 schools but SAs do not. • % part-time students at a school is used as a proxy for % of full-time degree seeking students who drop down to part-time status during their six-year window.

  15. Adjusted Graduation Gap (AGG) in FBS Football(Sept. 2013 press release from College Sport Research Institute published on Chronicle of Higher Education website)

  16. “Major clustering” is on the rise, especially as a function of new IE, PTD and APR standards

  17. How to define “major clustering”? • Case, Greer & Brown (1987) – Clustering = 25% or more of student-athletes on a team with the same major. • This definition lacks sufficient nuance.

  18. Majors of MFB,MBB vs. Other Male SAs (School 2 – No Statistically Significant Difference)

  19. Division I Student-Athlete Self-Report of Issues with Major Choice(among those who have selected a major)

  20. Coaching and administrative opportunities have increased in Division I for women and racial/ethnic minorities

  21. Percentage of Female Head Coaches in Various NCAA Women’s Sports(Comparison of 1995-96 vs 2012-13 – All Divisions)

  22. Changes in coach / administrator diversity • 79% of Division I women’s basketball assistant coaches were women in 1995. Today=65%. • Currently, 14.5% of NCAA head coaches are from racial/ethnic minority groups (10% in 1995). But, the number has increased from 736 to 1,513. • In 1996, 3,053 female head coaches of women's NCAA teams (43% of total). In 2012, total=4,024 (but down to 39% of total). • About 4% of NCAA men’s teams have women as head coaches. • Only 12% of NCAA athletics directors are from a racial/ethnic minority group (9% in 1995)

  23. FAR Diversity (Division I) • % Women • 1995-96: 18% (241 M, 53 W) • 2012-13: 30% (250 M, 108 W) • % White • 1995-96: 91% • 2012-13: 86%

  24. All FBS athletic departments net millions of dollars

  25. Number of Division I Schools Reporting Positive Net Revenue in Athletics Departments 25 18 18 23 19 25 20 14 22 Positive Net Revenue Total Division I Institutions *Number displayed by each data point equals number of institutions showing positive generated net revenue in that year. *Number displayed by each data point equals number of institutions showing positive generated net revenue in that year.

  26. Division I Teams that Generate more Revenue than Expenses 56% of FBS men’s football programs generate more revenue than expenses 22% of Division I men’s basketball programs generate more revenue than expenses Exhibit 3317, pgs. 28, 54, 80

  27. Division I Basketball Programs 120 122 97 74/339 = 22% Exhibit 3317, pgs. 28, 54, 80

  28. LIGHTNING ROUND

  29. A Division I student-athlete’s relationship with faculty members is best characterized as a privileged one

  30. Student-Athlete Perceptions of How They Are Viewed by Faculty

  31. Measures of Academic Entitlement

  32. Many Division I football and men’s basketball players are functionally illiterate

  33. Men’s Basketball vs. the Student Body • SAT reading <400 = “an elementary reading level and too low for college classes” ? • According to the College Board, 19% of all 2012 college bound HS seniors have SAT Critical Reading scores below 400. • 20% of MBB frosh below 400.

  34. Men’s Basketball vs. the Student Body • 16 on ACT Reading = “threshold for being college literate”?  According to the ACT, 20% of all ACT-tested HS graduates score below 16 on ACT Reading.  In contrast, only 13% of MBB frosh score below 16 on ACT Reading. • Among black MBB players, 26% have SAT Critical Reading scores below 400 vs. 37% among all black college-bound seniors nationwide. 

  35. APR is simply a measure of a school’s financial resources

  36. Predicting APR from Team/School Data

  37. Academic performance is better during a student-athlete’s competitive season

  38. In-Season Deficits Most Prominent in… • Football • Baseball, Softball • M/W Soccer • M Basketball (spring)

  39. APR Eligibility Rates in Track and Field for 2009-10(By term– semester schools only) APR eligibility rates calculated as 1000*(eligibility points earned / eligibility points possible). Participation split based on APR cohort inclusion.

  40. Division I student-athletes have a good read on their likelihood of playing at the pro or Olympic level

  41. Real vs. Perceived Probability of Pro Athletics Career

More Related