1 / 9

NCAA Division I Voting Patterns and Student-Athlete Well-Being

This project analyzes the voting patterns within NCAA Division I and explores their impact on student-athlete well-being, academic standards, and the amateur (collegiate) model. The study examines legislative proposals from 2004-2011 and their alignment with NCAA core values. Results suggest that economic factors play a significant role in voting outcomes, while the impact on student-athlete well-being and academic standards is less clear. The study also highlights proposals related to the amateur model and raises questions about governance and subdivision distinctions within Division I.

thomasgray
Download Presentation

NCAA Division I Voting Patterns and Student-Athlete Well-Being

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. Project 5: What’s at our core? NCAA Division I Voting Patterns vs. Student-Athlete Well-Being, Academic Standards, and the Amateur (Collegiate) Model Josephine (Jo) R. Potuto Richard H. Larson Professor of Constitutional Law University of Nebraska Connie Dillon, Professor Emerita of Adult and Higher Education, University of Oklahoma David E. Clough, Professor of Chemical and Biological Engineering, University of Colorado Knight Commission On Intercollegiate Athletics Washington, DC, October 9, 2012

  2. NCAA Core Values • Amateur (Collegiate) Model • Student-Athlete Well-Being • Academic Standards Questions Addressed By This Study Does NCAA Division I vote these core values? Does Division I all-division voting combined with subdivisional diversity impede the advancement of these core values?

  3. The Legislative Database for the Study • Years of Study: 2004-05 through 2010-11 • Two Governance Structures • 2004-05 – 2007-08 “Management Council” • 2008-09 – 2010-11 “Legislative Council” • Legislative Proposals • 1013 proposals, 587 reviewed • 345 proposals coded for analysis • Non-controversial and emergency proposals • were excluded from review • NCAA Division I [ 31 conferences / 340 institutions ] • Football Bowl Subdivision [ 11 / 120 + Notre Dame ] • (“BCS FBS” and “nonBCS FBS”) • Football Championship Subdivision (“FCS”) [ 11 / 122 ] • No-Football Subdivision (“noFB”) [ 9 / 98 ]

  4. Analyzing and Coding the Legislative Proposals • Why we excluded certain proposals: • non-controversial • emergency • Coding methodology • based on relevance to core principles • researchers coded independently then • resolved differences • Difficulties encountered • proposals unrelated to core values • complicated proposals with subparts • understanding other influential factors

  5. The Database and Statistical Analysis Legislative proposal characteristics vis-à-vis NCAA core values and economics coded and combined with Division I subdivision and overall voting records. Database created in an Excel spreadsheet and transferred to a Minitab project worksheet. Extensive analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the database using the general linear model. Exploration of relationship between variability in voting patterns and NCAA core value characteristics.

  6. What We Learned From the Statistical Analysis It is not apparent that the core values of student-athlete well-being and academic standards significantly affect Division I overall or subdivisional voting patterns. The economic impact of proposals is significant in determining the voting outcomes, except for the FBS BCS conferences during the earlier “Management Council” years of the study. There were not enough proposals that were relevant to the amateur (collegiate) model to allow statistical analysis.

  7. What We Learned From the Statistical Analysis (continued) • Legislative proposals that advance student-athlete • well-being or academic standards and have no • economic nor competitive impact are supported • throughout Division I with greater majorities than • other proposals. • Other factors, not analyzed, that may affect • voting patterns: • Institutional autonomy • Compliance concerns • Impact on other NCAA core values • Perceptions that a proposal cannot achieve goals • Difficulty in understanding the import and impact

  8. What We Also Observed There were 21 proposals related to the amateurism (collegiate model) principle. 7 of these were adopted unanimously or nearly so Of the remaining 14, 9 were related to professional opportunities 5 had to do with promotional activities • adopted proposals were limited in scope • all subdivisions supported expanding • promotional activities • subdivisions generally supported expanding • professional opportunities • some support shown to liberalize the • amateur (collegiate) model

  9. Observations and Questions Regarding Division I Governance • Lack of rigor and consistency in the NCAA • legislative process • Should this be addressed in a new • governance structure? • FCS and noFB subdivisions do not have distinguishable voting patterns Should these subdivisions be merged? • BCS FBS and nonBCS FBS conferences are significantly different Should or will a “super conference” subdivision be formed from BCS FBS?

More Related