University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Defining values in smaller college athletic programs: athletics effect on graduation rates

(USC Thesis Other)

Defining values in smaller college athletic programs: athletics effect on graduation rates

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 1
DEFINING VALUES IN SMALLER COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS:
ATHLETICS EFFECT ON GRADUATION RATES

by

David Dooley

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2017

Copyright 2016 David Dooley

ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 2
Dedication
I want to dedicate this work first to my family, Dani, Heath, Kirkham, Afton, Cora, and
Kiwi. Your support and sacrifices are much appreciated. Also to my parents and in-laws for your
unwavering support throughout this process.
Finally, I would dedicate this effort to all educators who care about learning and about
people. To those who have taught and mentored me and who dedicated their lives to the
betterment of others.

ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 3
Acknowledgements
The entire process of completing this dissertation and program has been exceptionally
worthwhile and fulfilling. The Hawaii cohort, beginning August 2013, and mostly graduating
May 2016, are like family in every way—as we alternated between loving and hating each other
on a regular basis. Regardless, I have felt constant support and care from each person. I
witnessed fantastic growth in individuals and humbly realized that I had far more to learn from
them than they could ever learn from me. My personal growth and belief in my own ability has
been significantly raised, and, more importantly, my belief in the ability of others has grown
exponentially. If there is one lesson that is the most life changing in this program, it is this idea—
that every individual, given the right tools and resources, and with the obstacles removed from
their pathway, can accomplish great things; there is no such thing as an incapable person. The
Hawaii cohort will forever be family and you have all blessed me tremendously.
I would like to thank the professors and staff at the Rossier School for their assistance
and support. There is an honest and sincere effort to ensure that each individual is able to be
successful as a student at Rossier. Dr. Picus for helping me appreciate finance and economics,
and for stepping up in the end. Dr. Sundt, as our vice-dean and program administrator, was
invaluable in helping us understand not only what we needed to do to be successful, but what our
potential for success is. Dr. Keim, as the original mentor and statistical lead, whose pragmatic
wisdom will never be forgotten. I would like to thank Dr. Rueda for allowing me to go fishing
with him and for helping me understand the ability of all individuals to learn, Dr. Garcia for
helping me rediscover a passion in educating children, and, finally, Dr. Ahmadi and Dr. Cole for
creating a greater understanding of the challenges of racism in education and diversity education,
and for letting me teach their wonderful children how to surf. I am also grateful for Dr. Datta as
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 4
our first instructor and role model, and for sitting on my dissertation committee, as well as Dr.
Tobey for her willingness to take time to assist me.
I would like to acknowledge Brigham Young University-Hawaii for providing support
and resources throughout this process. For Dr. Rowena Reid, Meli Lesuma, and Rose Ram, I am
especially grateful for those six hours of weekend car trips, early morning 7-11 stops, and
unwavering support and positive encouragement.
Finally, and above all others, I would like to acknowledge the support of my wife, Dani,
my children, Heath, Kirkham, Afton, and Cora, and family on the mainland. In the end I would
never have finished without their sacrifices. This became a true family effort in the final weeks,
especially when my beautiful wife and I were debating regression significances well after
midnight.

ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 5
Table of Contents
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
List of Tables 7
List of Figures 9
Abstract 10
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 11
Background and History of the Problem 11
History of the Problem 12
Big-Time Athletics Issues 13
Standard View Versus Integrated View 15
Smaller Higher Education Institution Athletic Programs 17
BYU-Hawaii Announces the End of Athletics. 17
Statement of the Problem 18
Purpose of the Study 19
Research Questions, Hypothesis and Design Theory 19
Importance of the Study 20
Definitions of Terms 21
Organization of the Study 22
Limitations 23
Chapter Two: Literature Review 24
Fund-Raising 24
Success-Based Economic Benefits 27
Tuition Raises 28
Branding 29
Admissions and Recruiting 31
Selectivity 33
Increase in Standardized Testing Scores 34
Athletics as Selection Criteria 35
Athletes as Students 36
Finance 38
Monetary Earnings 39
Subsidies 41
Profit and Loss 41
University Integrity 42
Athlete Exploitation 43
Graduation Rates 44
Student Life and College Experience 46
Social Benefits 46
Community 47
Community Revenue 47
Summary 49
Chapter Three: Methodology 51
Research Questions 51
Hypothesis 51
Sample and Population 52
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 6
NCAA Institutions 53
Athletic Administration 54
Instrumentation 55
Chapter Four: Data Analysis 58
Part One: Quantitative Data 59
Participants 60
Very Small Size Schools Data 61
Small-Sized Schools Data 62
Medium-Sized Schools Data 64
Large-Sized Schools Data 66
Part One Summary 68
Part One Conclusion 69
Part Two: Qualitative Analysis 70
Participants 70
Interview Data 71
Research Question Data 80
Part Two Conclusion 89
Part Three: Interpretation 89
Part Three: Research Question One Discussion 90
Part Three: Research Question Two Discussion 92
Part Three: Research Question Three Discussion 93
Part Three- Summary of Analysis and Interpretation of Research Questions 96
Chapter Four Conclusion 98
Chapter Five: Discussion of Findings 99
Hypothesis 101
Quantitative Correlation Analysis 101
Explanatory Sequential Design Results 102
Limitations 103
Implications for Practice 103
Conclusion 104
References 106
Appendix A: Interview Protocols 119
Appendix B: Quantitative Research Data 123
Appendix C: Revenue and Expenses 2013 NCAA Division I Athletics 151

ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 7
List of Tables
Table 1: NCAA Institutions by Division; Institution Undergraduate Population, 2013-2014 53

Table 2: NCAA Institutions by Carnegie Classification: Size; Undergraduate Population
2013-2014 54

Table 3: Information about University and Athletics Administrators Interviewed for this Study55

Table 4: Very Small Sized NCAA Schools Population and Graduation Rate Data 2013-2014 61

Table 5: Small Sized NCAA Schools Population and Graduation Rate Data 2013-2014 63

Table 6: Medium Sized NCAA Schools Population and Graduation Rate Data 2013-2014 65

Table 7: Large Sized NCAA Schools Population and Graduation Rate Data 2013-2014 67

Table 8: Correlations and Regression Coefficients for Effect of Percentage of Athletes to the
Six-Year Graduation Rate Categorized by Size According to Carnegie Classifications for
NCAA Schools 69

Table 9: Interview Question One Responses and Themes: What Are Some Differences That
You Recognize Between Larger University Athletic Programs And Smaller College Athletic
Programs? 72

Table 10: Interview Question Two Responses and Themes: What Is Your Highest Priority,
Or The Most Important Value Measurement, For A University or College Athletic Program? 73

Table 11: Interview Question Three Responses and Themes: What Are Some Additional
Benefits That Universities Can Realize From Hosting Athletics? How Do You Know These
Benefits Exist? 75

Table 12: Interview Question Four Responses and Themes: How Do Athletes Affect
Recruiting And Admissions In The Programs You Work With? 76

Table 13: Interview Question Five Responses and Themes: What Role Does Athletics Play In
Student Life? 78

Table 14: Interview Question Six Responses and Themes: Are There Any Academic Benefits
To The University In Hosting Athletic Programs? 79

Table 15: What Are The Primary Values That University Administrators At Smaller
Institutions Identify For Collegiate Athletic Programs? 82

Table 16: What Differences Do University Administrators Recognize Between Large
University Athletic Programs And Smaller University Programs? 84
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 8
Table 17: Is There an Academic Benefit for All Students, Not Just Athletes, In Attending a
College Where Athletic Programs Are Present? 88

Table B1: Very Small Sized Schools Data 123

Table B2: Small Sized Schools Data 126

Table B3: Medium Sized Schools Data 137

Table B4: Large Sized Schools Data 145

ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 9
List of Figures
Figure 1: Explanatory Sequential Design 20
Figure 2: Explanatory Sequential Design Study 52
Figure 3: Scatterplot Graph for Very Small Sized Four-Year Colleges and Universities 62
Figure 4: Scatterplot Graph for Small Sized Four-Year Colleges and Universities. 64
Figure 5. Scatterplot Graph for Medium Sized Four-Year Colleges and Universities 66
Figure 6. Scatterplot graph for large sized four-year colleges and universities 68

ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 10
Abstract
University athletic programs are one of the most visible components of a university, yet
also one of the least studied. Much of the research is focused on big-time athletic programs, on
economic value and value to the athletes as individuals. This study examined the value of
athletics as perceived by university administrators at smaller universities and colleges. Three
research questions guided the study: What are the primary values that university administrators
at smaller institutions identify for collegiate athletic programs? What differences do university
administrators recognize between large university athletic programs and smaller university
programs? And, is there an academic benefit for all students, not just athletes, in attending a
college where athletic programs are present? The final research question prompted the
hypothesis: there is a positive effect on the academic performance of undergraduate students
when higher education institutions host athletic programs and a higher percentage of athletes will
correlate with improved 6-year graduation rates.
The data indicate that the presence of athletics at a university can increase 6-year
graduation rates and support a positive finding for the hypothesis. An explanatory sequential
mixed-methods study was utilized to allow for the creation of quantitative research that can be
explained through qualitative analysis of interviews. A test for a correlation between the
percentage of athletes in an undergraduate population and the university’s 6-year graduation rate
was conducted and tested for correlation and significance. Institutions were divided according to
Carnegie classifications for school sizing. Data analysis showed medium and small correlations,
according to Pearson r tests, for small, medium, and large-sized institutions. Very small
institutions did not show a correlation. The highest correlation (r = .439) was found in medium-
sized schools with a regression coefficient of β = 2.27.

ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 11
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Universities face tighter budgets and calls for increased transparency in their processes.
Because of the high costs of athletic programs, and the media attention that accompanies
spending, universities are held accountable for results both in and out of the athletic arena
(Clopton, 2007). Recent discussions on Jim Harbaugh’s five million dollar-a-year contract
prompted the Michigan athletic department to justify the spending on his contract by outlining
the benefits they estimate will be realized at the university in the near future (Greenberg, 2014;
Kilgore 2014). Nationwide, pundits asked similar questions on spending output and potential
return on investment, not just for the new Michigan coach, but also for other high-paid college
coaches around the country. As universities are under pressure to reduce budget expenditures and
create unique ways to save money, some look at the elimination of athletics programs as a viable
option (Perez, 2012; Stinson, Marquardt, & Chandley, 2012). Students, staff, alumni, and the
university community can find themselves at odds with university administrators and boards who
offer program elimination as an option.
Background and History of the Problem
Sports departments at universities are not often studied (Williams, Byrd, & Pennington,
2008), and rarely put under scrutiny (Clotfelter, 2011). Few universities treat their athletic
departments with the same degree of review and process as they do their academics, placing
athletics primarily as an external part of the university (Brand, 2006). Most schools lack a
willingness to understand the values their athletic programs provide, relying on history and
tradition to provide continued support for programs (Clotfelter, 2011; Williams et al., 2008).
There are a lot of claims about the validity of value measurements in college athletics that need
to be better researched (Feezell, 2015). Other writers noted that educational researchers fail to
examine sports in theoretical and analytical models (Braddock, Lv, & Dawkins, 2008).
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 12
History of the Problem
University athletic programs began over a century ago when, in the 1800s, universities in
the United States began to host athletic contests against other universities (Clotfelter, 2011;
Duderstadt, 2000). Whether it was a rowing contest or leather-helmeted football contest, athletics
originated as a way for one university to prove superiority over the other, both athletically and
academically, though the original athletes were often not even students (Flowers, 2009). The
athletic image of a university has since become one of the primary tools used to judge the overall
value of the university to a potential student (Duderstadt, 2000; Siegfried & Getz, 2012). Many
argue that too much weight is placed on the value of university athletics and that other
universities outside of the United States, where athletics are not a part of the college experience,
must wonder why we allow athletes to come to college without the appropriate academic
qualifications (Fried, 2007). From the beginning, there have been challenges to maintaining an
appropriate perspective on collegiate athletics (Clotfelter, 2011). In reality, it seems that the true
amateurism that is often discussed by sports journalism and broadcasters is a myth. Flowers
(2009) stated that too many people long for a “romanticized past that never existed” (p. 358)
instead of recognizing the actual historical context of athletic programs. This study provides a
brief historical examination of some of the problems facing collegiate athletics.
BYU-Hawaii listed the total expenses of $2,532,221 for their combined 2013-2014
programs. There were a total of 71 male participants and 90 female participants in athletics
during this time for a combined total of 161 athletes (United States Department of Education,
2015). The per-participant average for athletes per year totals $15,728, roughly the same cost to
cover tuition, room, board and related expenses for a single student for an entire three-semester
year at BYU-Hawaii. As BYU-Hawaii is a private university, there is no public record available
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 13
outlining the total revenue that athletics received from ticket sales, advertising, donations, or
sponsorships.
Big-Time Athletics Issues
University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) made national headlines recently with the
announcement of the dissolution of their football program in December 2014 followed by the
June, 1, 2015, announcement that they would be re-instating the football program (UAB, 2015).
Though there are many arguments and discussions regarding the need for football at UAB, the
primary argument against the football program was cost. Re-instatement came only after donors
contributed an estimated $27,000,000 and the promise of an additional $17,000,000 per year
(Scarborough, 2015). In 2013, expenses for UAB were $27,544,633 with a revenue of
$28,159,249. However, though a net positive revenue of $614,616 is realized in these figures, the
revenue includes a subsidy of $18,070,530 (Berkowitz, Schnaars, & Upton, 2014). Subsidized
funding can come from a variety of sources, including student body fees, raised tuition costs,
donations, general funds, and non-allocated university donations. When studying revenue and
spending, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) generally excludes institutional
support, or subsidies, from the equation (Orszag & Orszag, 2005). At UAB, 64% of the revenue
is in subsidies, placing the total debt of the program at $17,455,914 (Appendix C). This amount
must either continue to be matched each year, or revenue needs to be increased. Without
matching funds, the program faced possible elimination a second time (Scarborough, 2015).
Maintaining the integrity of the university is also paramount for athletic programs. Penn
State University was rocked in 2011 when it was discovered that a football coach had committed
child abuse in university facilities and that high-ranking coaches and school administrators may
have covered it up (Klein & Tolson, 2015). The 2013 Florida State University Heisman Trophy
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 14
winning quarterback was arrested multiple times in 2013 and 2014 on various charges and
accusations, and suspended for one game in 2014 because of inappropriate campus behavior
(Biemiller, 2015). The University of North Carolina, famous for its multiple national basketball
championships, was under a multi-year (2002-2011) investigation for creating an academic
program specifically for its black athletes that distributed grades and credit for classes that never
existed and for graduating athletes who could not write at even a basic secondary level (Svrluga,
2015).
Challenges to integrity have existed from the foundation of collegiate athletics. For
example, the very first university athletic competitions featured non-student athletes to enhance
athletic programs and win games (Flowers, 2009). It was the presence of non-students, along
with ever-increasing levels of violence and injuries that prompted President Roosevelt to demand
the formation of the original collegiate football league to rein in abuses and control player safety
(Duderstadt, 2000). Athletics was legitimatized by prohibiting profit, instilling values, and
forcing participants to become students (Flowers, 2009). However, every year, new challenges to
the integrity of university athletics prompts additional policies to prevent further abuses.
Another threat to the increasing cost of running athletic programs comes in the form of
paying athletes. In March of 2014, football players at Northwestern University voted to unionize
(Weaver, 2015). The effort to ensure that players receive monetary rewards and employment
protections created a chilling effect throughout the NCAA. Virtually every media outlet covering
athletics published articles outlining the topic, with a majority providing editorials. In 2014,
National Public Radio alone published 73 articles online on the topic of paying collegiate
athletes. One of the questions by supporters and non-supporters alike is if paying athletes
becomes the standard, then how would their pay be determined? University of South Carolina
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 15
coach Steve Spurrier recently proposed a $300 per-game model. Other proposals came in at as
much as $600 a game if a per-minute model were adopted. Players in these scenarios would earn
anywhere from $6000 to $7000 a season on top of their scholarships (Johnson & Acquaviva,
2012). With each team carrying a scholarship roster of 85 players (Redding, 2015, this could
total $510,000 to $595,000 a year in additional costs for football. One of the primary questions is
how much would be paid to athletes from other revenue generating programs like men’s
basketball and whether non-revenue sports athletes would be paid in a similar fashion. There are
other issues, such as how to deal with recruited players who failed to perform or how to support
injured athletes (Johnson & Acquaviva, 2012).
Standard View Versus Integrated View
As discussions on the validity of university athletic programs increase in visibility, and
costs are openly questioned, it is essential that measurable values be clearly defined. There is a
strong tradition of athletics at United States colleges and universities; therefore, the roles and
values must be examined from both economic and educational perspectives. Two prominent
frameworks for understanding the role of athletics in a university are regularly discussed.
Commonly referred to as Views, they are the Standard View and the Integrated View. In the
standard view, university athletics are a separate division of the university that should be self-
supporting and administered independent of academic administration (Brand, 2006). The
integrated view combines athletics and academics, placing athletics on the same academic level
as dance, musical performance, or theater (Brand, 2006).
Most university faculty and many of the detractors of university athletics support the
standard view framework (Cortlett, 2013). College sports are big-business and function as a
major form of sports entertainment. According to Feezell (2015), universities need to choose to
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 16
support and expand athletics or separate them out and let them stand on their own The value is
not in athletics being a part of the university mission, but as a part of the business of running a
university.
Myles Brand, the former president of the NCAA, presented the integrated view as an
alternative to the standard view. Athletes, Brand (2006) argued, devote similar levels of time and
study and bring comparable levels of expertise to the university and should be awarded as such.
Because athletic departments often generate revenue at much higher levels than the performing
arts, the actual cost of integration into academics is significantly lower. In 2010, NCAA
President Emmert stated, “Our mission is to be an integral part of higher education and to focus
on the development of our student-athletes” (NCAA, 2010, para. 5).
Recently, a Fiscal Responsibility View was proposed by Cortlett (2013) in this view,
Cortlett described the need for proven return on investment for athletic budgets. This view
argues for positive financial return on any athletic expenditure. In other words, an athletic
program should be judged on its ability to cover its programs’ expenses. However, economists
point out that assigning fiscal value to all of the benefits realized by athletics can be difficult
because of the many variables affecting the areas of measurement (Brewer & Pedersen, 2013).
One primary example of this is in determining the actual value of tuition. A single semester’s
tuition for a student can vary greatly depending on the type of university (state or private) while
the actual cost to educate may be much different. In other words, an athlete receiving a $14,000
scholarship to attend a semester of school at an expensive private university may be receiving the
same benefit as an athlete receiving a $2,400 scholarship from a public university.

ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 17
Smaller Higher Education Institution Athletic Programs
Michner’s (1976) comment about the lack of academic research on collegiate athletics is
especially true for smaller college athletic programs. Similarly, there are few empirical studies
on community colleges (Williams et al., 2008). Big-time football and basketball receive the
majority of the attention because they provide the greatest economic value. Institutions without
these types of programs often do not receive the same levels of benefits, such as those discussed
later in Chapter Two, or scrutiny (Smith, 2009). Community colleges, Division II, Division III,
and National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) schools invest more resources into
athletics programs. Williams et al. (2008) found that the great majority of research available
about university athletics is focused on four-year programs while, at the same time, smaller
universities and community colleges actively invest more money and resources into expanding
their programs. While smaller colleges decide whether to continue to support athletics or to
terminate them, there is not an adequate amount of data to help them make decisions.
BYU-Hawaii Announces the End of Athletics.
On March 28,

2014, BYU-Hawaii officially announced that they would phase out its
intercollegiate athletic program over a period of three years (Peavler, 2014). In the official
announcement, the primary reason for phasing out the Division II athletics program was that the
university’s board of directors and the executive staff felt money would be better spent
elsewhere. There was also a concern that increasing demands on universities, including concern
over emerging trends in collegiate athletics would require additional funding sources (Peavler,
2014). It should be noted that this decision was announced the day after the National Labor
Relations Board in Chicago issued a ruling announcing that Northwestern University football
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 18
players could unionize (Ganim, 2014) and less than a month before those same athletes voted for
unionization.
BYU-Hawaii is unique in that over 40% of its student population comes from abroad,
most from Asia, Pacific Islands, and Oceana areas. Board members stated that their wish is to
utilize more funds to provide for the education of more students from the Asia-Pacific areas
(Peavler, 2014). The move to cancel athletics was not well received by the BYU-Hawaii
community in general. At forums hosted by university officials students, faculty, staff, and
members of the local community expressed their displeasure with the decision. However, few
students attended sports events either before or after the decision. Average attendance at men’s
basketball games was 43 while the women’s volleyball team, a nationally ranked program,
brought fewer than 30 spectators. It is difficult to defend the benefits of maintaining a university
athletic program when so few students and community members participate in the events.
Statement of the Problem
There are too few measurement tools to help define the value of college athletics. As
Michner (1976), Williams et al. (2008) and Clotfelter (2011) noted, little research exists to
defend the amount of resources put into collegiate athletics. Though social and emotional
encouragement of athletic programs remains strong from supporting communities, funding
resources and faculty support are increasingly scrutinized (Feezell, 2015). Some athletic
programs are subsidized by millions of dollars per year from student funding sources, but very
few are financially able to support themselves (Sperber, 2008). University boards as well as
community groups ask for justification of spending in athletics (Lifschitz, Sauder, & Stevens,
2014). Additional valid measurement tools need to be created in order to fairly ascertain the
value of athletic programs to institutions of higher education.
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 19
There are very distinct differences among institutions in terms size and division.
Research indicates that, though there are many potential benefits, the primary value of large
university athletic programs is for branding and recruiting purposes (Jones, 2009; Siegfried &
Getz, 2012). Smaller school programs do not typically receive similar value in branding (Stinson
et al., 2012). There are about 150 NCAA Division I universities that participate in football bowl
games and/or the NCAA national basketball championships. By contrast, there are over 900
additional NCAA programs in Divisions I, II, and III that host athletic programs and over 250
NAIA colleges and universities. The research that does exist on collegiate athletics is primarily
focused on the values of large school athletics (Williams et al., 2008).
Purpose of the Study
This study presents results of a quantitative analysis of correlations between the
percentage of athletes on a university campus and associated 6-year graduation rates. Following
the results of the quantitative analysis, an analysis of interviews with university and college
administrators determined whether the primary values identified by administrators agree with
findings from the quantitative study. The quantitative analysis also separated colleges and
universities by population size to see if correlations were dependent on the university’s
population size. Results from both the qualitative and quantitative analyses are combined to
identify values of athletics in small colleges and universities and to see if academic performance
for the entire undergraduate student body improves because of the presence of athletics.
Research Questions, Hypothesis and Design Theory
The study focused on identifying values of college athletic programs according to the size
of the university. Three research questions guided this study:
1. What are the primary values that university administrators at smaller institutions have
identified for collegiate athletic programs?
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 20
2. What differences do university administrators recognize between large university
athletic programs and smaller university programs?
3. Is there an academic benefit for all students attending a university or college when
athletic programs are present? Why or why not?
The hypothesis of this study is that there is a positive effect on undergraduate students’
academic performance when higher education institutions host athletic programs. An
explanatory sequential study design (Creswell, 2013) was utilized for this research. Figure 1
illustrates the step-by-step process. The first phase consisted of a quantitative analysis of
correlational data examining the percentage of athletes in the student body at a university with
the 6-year graduation rate. Following the correlational analysis, a qualitative analysis of
interview data with university and athletic leadership was conducted to explain the correlational
results.

Figure 1. Explanatory Sequential Design. Outlines the process for explaining quantitative
research results with qualitative data to present an explanation of results (Creswell, 2013).

Importance of the Study
Identification of values will assist university governing bodies and interested community
groups understand the effects of funding, resource, and support of athletic programs on the
university and greater community. Chapter Two reviews the research on university athletics and
shows that the vast majority of that research is focused primarily on larger university programs.
Qualitative
Data
Collection
and Analysis
Quantitative
Data
Collection
and Analysis
Determine
Quantitative
Results that
Need
Explanation
Interpret How
Qualitative
Results Explain
Quantitative
Analysis
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 21
The research described here provides additional evidence of different university athletic
programs’ values according to the size of the school. The findings may also encourage additional
study into understanding the values of small college athletics.
Definitions of Terms
Big-time: Refers to large college athletic programs, those that compete in the Bowl
Championship Series (BCS) for football. In Chapter Two, some programs are designated as big-
time programs. “Big-time” refers to universities annually receiving multi-million-dollar revenue
from their athletic programs and are considered large programs (Clotfelter, 2011).
BCS or Bowl Championships Series: College football national championship series for the
largest NCAA division. End of season championships are played in bowl games.
Carnegie Classification: University of college population size classification is determined by
the Size and Setting listing in the Carnegie Classification of Higher Education (Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2010). These classifications used in this study are
listed as follows:
 VS4: Very small four-year (fewer than 1000 degree-seeking students)
 S4:Small four-year (1,000-2,999 degree-seeking students)
 M4: Medium four-year (3,000-9,999 degree-seeking students)
 L4: Large four-year (10,000 or more degree-seeking students)
College, Collegiate, and University: The terms are used interchangeably and no additional
inference is intended when one term or the other is referenced.
Large or Larger University: In this study, unless otherwise stated, large or larger universities or
colleges will refer to all universities within the L4 category of the Carnegie classification.
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 22
National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA): The largest athletics association of colleges
for amateur college athletics.
Small or Smaller Universities or Colleges: will refer to any school under 9,999 students.
Throughout the research some of the university athletic programs will be referred to as large
school athletic programs and small school athletic programs.
Organization of the Study
Chapter Two provides a literature review of research currently available regarding
collegiate athletics. The review is organized by various athletic topics identified in the research
and includes fund-raising, branding, admissions and recruiting, athletes as students, finance,
university integrity, athlete exploitation, graduation rates, student life, and college experience. A
summary of the literature review highlights main themes presented in the literature.
Following the literature review, Chapter Three outlines the methodologies used in the
study. A detailed description of the research populations and their selection. As this study
utilized a mixed-methods explanatory sequential design approach, the first phase illustrates
correlations discovered between the percentage of athletes on a university campus and the
student body’s 6-year graduation. The second phase outlines themes and ideas from interviews
with athletic administrators. Those themes and ideas are used to explain correlations found in the
first phase.
The first portion of chapter four consists of a quantitative analysis of university academic
graduation data and athlete population percentages. Following the quantitative data analysis,
results from qualitative questioning, including presentation of themes and main ideas, with a
summary of the data are presented. An explanation of correlations found in the quantitative
portion of the study utilizing themes from the interview findings in the qualitative portion
complete chapter four. A final discussion of those findings, limitations of the study, and
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 23
implications for future use are included in Chapter Five. This study was completed with
consideration toward future research and final conclusions.
Limitations
This study was limited in its scope to NCAA institutions only. Non-NCAA four-year
universities and colleges were not included nor were two-year or community college programs.
A large percentage of students attending postsecondary institutions attend community colleges,
and most of these schools host athletic programs (Williams et al., 2008). Differences in the effect
of type of sport, sex of athlete, team sports, individual sports, and other differentiating factors
were also not included, but can be additional areas of study. An additional limiting factor was the
difference in population sizes of universities within the same Carnegie classification. Sizes can
vary as much as 400% within a classification. Further studies into differences within Carnegie
classification sizes would also be helpful.
This study did not attempt to determine causality of the effect of athletic programs on
graduation rates with the exception of statements made in interviews. This study was an attempt
to determine if an effect exists and the significance of the effect. Future studies of causality will
assist universities in maximizing the positive effects of athletics to a university and in
minimizing the negative effects that athletic programs may have.

ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 24
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
In order to determine differences in the values that athletic programs bring to a
university, an examination of current research into athletic program values is needed. Research
indicates several values, benefits, and concerns that are regularly discussed with regards to
higher education athletic programs. While much of the data are exclusive to large athletic
programs, the research can help universities considering changing the scope of their athletic
offerings—for example, from Division II to Division I, or, as is the case with BYU-Hawaii
mentioned in Chapter One, dropping athletic programs altogether. The following values were
selected because they are discussed with the greatest frequency in the research: fund-raising,
branding, admissions and recruiting, finance, university integrity, athlete exploitation, graduation
rates, academic performance, student life, and community benefits. Though this list is not
exhaustive, it does represent a large cross section of debate centered on the value of university
athletic programming. It is important to also note that benefits, mainly from large school sports
programs, do not translate over to smaller colleges (Alexander & Kern, 2009; Stinson et al.,
2012); however, they need to be addressed in order to understand the differences between larger
and smaller universities’ athletic programs.
Fund-Raising
One of the first benefits introduced when discussing higher education athletic programs is
the positive effect it has on fund-raising. While there is a great deal of research to support this
claim, the actual benefits to universities are heavily debated. Intercollegiate athletics has a
statistically significant and valuable impact on donations to a university, especially when
programs are successful (Martinez, Stinson, Kang, & Jubenville, 2010; Clopton, 2007).
Fundraising can come in the form of alumni donations, booster program funding, tuition raises,
ad revenue, ticket revenues, and merchandise sales. Even legislative largesse can be improved by
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 25
successful athletic programming. When an athletic team is successful, more state legislative
support is expected through funding and grants (Smith, 2009). Alexander and Kern (2010)
showed this effect to be as much as $1.1 million per win in football. The University of
Connecticut is a good example of this, as it received much higher grants and federal funding
after significant investment into college athletic programs that became nationally successful
(Siegfried & Getz, 2012). However, these benefits are often limited to successful programs in
football and men’s basketball only with a few exceptions for some women’s basketball programs
and specialized programs in specific geographic regions (Duderstadt, 2000; Siegfried & Getz,
2012).
Faculty view athletics as a luxury and not as a central part of the institution mission
(Jenkins, 2006). Professors who complain about university spending on athletic programs
nevertheless benefit financially from the success of those programs. Multiple research illustrates
that the positive fund-raising effect is not limited to donations for athletics only but rather
beneficial for both academics and athletics (Howard & Stinson 2010; Martinez et al., 2010).
Additional fund-raising support is especially valuable for state universities as higher education
financial support is declining (Howard and Stinson, 2010) and institutions have to seek out new
ways to raise revenue for all programs. As noted by both Howard and Stinson (2010) and
Martinez et al. (2010), the higher the academic ranking of the university, the more likely an
athletic donor was to begin donating to academics also. Studies state that alumni give more
generously to colleges with successful athletic programs (Baade & Sundberg, 1996). Howard and
Stinson (2010) found that donors who give to both athletics and academics are highly likely to
donate nearly equally to both groups, donate at higher levels, and are more easily retained for
future donations. Donors are often wooed by gifts and opportunities from athletic departments.
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 26
Donors can receive perks such as open access to side-lines and locker-rooms and coaches who
spend time with them before games. Coaches will even be called in to help close especially large
academic gifts, as Rick Pitino, the Louisville basketball coach, was in assisting the close of a
large donation to the university hospital (Wolverton, 2007).
While most fund-raising specifically benefits big-time sports schools, there are some
benefits to smaller colleges. A study of highly selective liberal arts colleges found that former
athletes were also more likely to donate to the university, by as much as 22%, than their non-
athlete counterparts. The effect was more pronounced with non-football players, with a
difference of about seven percent over football players (Holmes, Meditz, & Sommers, 2008).
This indicates that development efforts by colleges could target former athletes for fund-raising
efforts. This effect, they noted, decreased with the age of the alumnus. Football, the most
expensive program to operate on college campuses, also produces alumni who donate at a lower
level. Donors give primarily as a display of allegiance and to help fund student-athlete
scholarships (Ko, Rhee, Walker, & Lee, 2014). Donors are well-aware of what they are funding
and want to see the institutions they support continue to support student-athletes.
However, Siegfried and Getz (2012) noted that donations are a resource that could go
toward academics instead. There is a finite amount to how much donors will give, and, when
athletics takes a larger share, academic giving is reduced (Wolverton, 2007). Alumni seeing their
donations used to subsidize athletic programs, either directly or indirectly, become frustrated
when they perceive that their funds are being misused. When money is dedicated to improving
athletics at the expense of academic programming, alumni donations may be reduced (Baade, &
Sundberg, 1996). While athletic giving to the country’s largest university programs has grown,
academic donation levels have flattened out. By one study, 14.7% of all contributions were
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 27
dedicated to athletics in 1998; by 2003, sports donation levels were at 26% (Wolverton, 2007).
Football success also increased overall alumni gift amounts for the school as a whole; however,
basketball success rates did not increase alumni giving (Tucker, 2004). By even the most
optimistic of economic estimates, an over 10% raise in dedicated athletic donations means that
there are fewer dollars being dedicated to academics. An example of this was noted by
Wolverton (2007), who stated that researchers found a correlation in the rise of stadium/arena
seat licensing fees and reduced academic donations. Seat licensing fees refer to the donation
required by universities in order to have the right to purchase season tickets. The fee does not
cover the cost of the actual ticket. Some universities overcome that obstacle by substituting
academic donation amounts toward seat licensing fees. In other words, a $10,000 donation to the
chemistry department would be recognized as a $10,000 licensing fee. Donors, especially during
economic recession, have limited capacity. As athletic programs are successful in bringing
higher percentages of athletics donations to the university, academic donation percentages must
be reduced. While athletic success might bring additional fund-raising opportunities, it may
come at the cost of academics.
Success-Based Economic Benefits
The economic benefits for college sport programs are reliant on program success and the
increased visibility post-season play brings. Alexander and Kern (2010) found that, “Division 1-
A schools receive a ‘premium’ of approximately $1.1 million more per additional win in state
appropriations per football win and $797,000 per additional basketball win” (p. 263). They
warned, though, that the increased cost of hosting a more successful sport program might not be
worth the overall investment. When athletic programs win, especially conference championships,
alumni giving goes up significantly (Holmes et al., 2008). Gift giving and donation correlations,
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 28
though, are difficult to judge, as there are many variables. Siegfried and Getz (2012) remarked
that the one sure thing is that winning a championship will help. Other studies showed that
football bowl appearances were a significant positive factor in alumni giving rates, but winning
percentages were found to have little to do with alumni giving (Baade, & Sundberg, 1996; Goff,
2000). However, various research showed that many universities do not get more money nor do
they gain school spirit when they win a championship (Feezell, 2015). In a study of small,
private, elite colleges, Fried (2007) found no correlation between alumni donations and win/loss
records. For large university sports programs, high winning percentages and championships
appear to bring more donations to the university; for smaller programs, the effect is reduced and
probably does not have a significant effect on donations (Alexander & Kern, 2010).
Tuition Raises
Additional fund-raising possibilities come from raising tuition, specifically for out-of-
state students at public institutions as the university becomes more desirable and popular to
attend. Though some universities are able to raise tuition with successful sport programming,
only the most successful are able to do so without a negative impact on their admission quality.
In one study, Alexander and Kern (2009) discovered that each additional win in football and
basketball resulted in a per student increase of approximately $19.54. This is due to an increase
in demand to attend the university and is especially pronounced for out-of-state student tuition
fees (Alter & Reback, 2014). The Big Ten conference schools of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Maryland, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Ohio State, Penn
State, Purdue, Rutgers, and Wisconsin charge out-of-state students $4067 more for tuition. The
Pacific Athletic Conference (PAC 12) universities of Arizona, Arizona State, University of
California (UC) Berkeley, UC Los Angeles, Colorado, Oregon, Oregon State, University of
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 29
Southern California, Stanford, Utah, Washington, and Washington State increased tuition by
$1067 over universities in smaller conferences (Alexander & Kern, 2009). Later discussions in
this chapter focus on the recruiting effect that successful sports programs can have on a
university; however, success is often accompanied by a raise in tuition justified by increased
demand in attendance. Universities will also raise tuition for incoming students when application
numbers increase (Pope & Pope, 2009).
Branding
Branding is an important attribute to any university. The brand of a university affects its
ability to attract top students, professors, and administrators; draw media contracts for athletic
events; obtain grants and funding; place students in desirable internships and job placements; and
create a network of influence around the world. The more often a university’s name is mentioned
on television, the more familiar it becomes to the general public (Jones, 2009). That familiarity
can attract more students to the university, and it attracts students with academic talent which
enhances university prestige (Siegfried & Getz, 2012). Changes in media availability and
accessibility increased viewership and exposure on a wider scale in the last two decades (Tucker,
2005). Winning on national television improves endowment donations, enrollments, and the
quality of incoming students (Murphy, Tocher, & Ward, 2014).
Athletic success creates incredible opportunities to enhance or, conversely, diminish a
university’s brand. In 2011, there were over 100 million fans of college football, with
approximately 43% of U.S. residents watching at least one bowl game during the 2010-2011
season (Chung, 2013). With nearly half of the United States watching at least one college
football bowl game, there is significant opportunity for universities to show themselves off. In
order to better market themselves as educating the whole student, the NCAA, during nationally
televised games, plays commercials touting the value of the universities’ academic programs.
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 30
The NCAA (NCAA, 2007) began a television and radio media campaign in 2007 with athletes
repeating the theme, “There are over 380,000 student-athletes, and most of us go pro in
something other than sports” promoting the academic focus of student-athletes. Some
universities like Stanford (Elias, 2013) and BYU (Zobell, 2012) pushed individual media pieces
outlining that same theme. The NCAA, conferences, and universities take advantage of the
public popularity of athletic programs to promote the academic value of the school through
similar branding campaigns.
Appearing in and winning nationally televised football games has a positive impact on
desirable university athletic outcomes. Experiencing athletic success increases academic
reputation (Goff, 2000). The positive effect of a long-term, big-time football tradition is
especially valuable to a university (Murphy et al.,2014). Even conference affiliation is linked to
non-athletic measurements of status (Lifschitz et al., 2014). Being a member of one of the five
major athletic conferences (Atlantic Coast [ACC], Big Ten [B1G], Big 12, Pac 12, and
Southeastern [SEC]), brings athletics prestige regardless of the level of performance. For
example, being a SEC member institution or a Pac 12 conference team creates academic
associations with other member schools. Whether the increased academic prestige is deserved or
not, it is assumed (Jones, 2009). Branding can work both ways and may damage the academic
reputation of elite universities; for example, in conference alignment selection, when conferences
bring in new schools that do not perform to either the athletic or academic levels of the
university, status of all other members of the conference is potentially harmed, both athletically
and academically (Lifschitz et al., 2014).
Athletics is often seen as the primary brand of the university. The public has far more
exposure to athletic programs than they do to academic ones. Siegfried and Getz (2012) quoted
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 31
University of New Mexico President, David Schmidly, who said “One of the most effective ways
to market your university nationally is to have a really quality athletic program” (p.53). There is
a belief that being successful in athletics equates to being successful at other things as well
(Franco & Pessoa, 2014). The use of university branding in sports promotes the school to outside
sources (Nadelson, Semmelroth, Martinez, Featherstone, Fuhriman, & Sell, 2013). Potential
students do not see the actual campus and the environment, as they only have the college
athletics atmosphere to judge their potential match (Jones, 2009). When examining school logo
familiarity, Watkins and Gonzenbach (2013) illustrated that athletic logos, as opposed to
academic logos, generated more excitement and interest in the university. Athletics programs
historically grant legitimacy to a college (Lifschitz et al., 2014). The university brand, the
perception of the university, is more closely associated with the athletic logo (Watkins &
Gonzenbach, 2013).
A university’s self-perception is often determined by its athletic success. This self-
perception is often deeply ingrained in the culture of universities. Lifschitz et al. (2014) observed
that football players make up an inordinately large percentage of boards of trustees members at
universities. The connection between athletics and university prestige and perception, from both
within and without the university, is one of the reasons universities continue to fund athletics
even when many of the value measurements are negative (Lifschitz et al, 2014; Siegfried &
Getz, 2012). Overall, schools with better athletic programs also score higher on the US News and
World Report rankings (Trenkamp, 2009). Though the relationships causing this effect could also
be due to a number of factors, big-time athletics and branding have a strong relationship.
Admissions and Recruiting
There are many advantages to increased exposure and branding for university admissions.
The primary example, cited in multiple papers, is that the increased awareness of a university
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 32
promotes admissions applications (Braddock et al, 2008; Chung, 2013; Alexander & Kern, 2010;
Smith, 2009). A one-point increase in television rating increases the number of applications by
.34% for both sexes (Jones, 2009). At any level, simply having sports programs will attract more
applicants (Siegfried & Getz, 2012). Athletic success heavily influences students who are
looking to transition to a university environment (Nadelson et al, 2013). This effect is also
known as the Flutie factor, referencing the 1983 upset of the University of Miami by Boston
College when Doug Flutie completed a last second pass for a touchdown, which resulted in a
25% increase in Boston College applicants the following year (Braddock et al., 2008). Pope and
Pope (2014) referred to this as a surprise victory and noted a slight pattern of increased
applications when unexpected athletic victories occurred.
Likewise, exposure on national television, especially positive exposure, increases the
likelihood that a potential applicant will become aware of the university and place them in their
consideration groups. For example, having a team in the NCAA basketball tournament increased
total numbers of SAT scores submitted to a university by 2.2%. Making it to the Sweet Sixteen
(the top 16 teams remaining in the NCAA basketball tournament) increased score submissions
by 3.8%, the Final Four teams had a resulting 5.7% raise, and the champion raised submission
numbers by 9%. In football, completing the season with a top-20 ranking results in a 2% rise in
applicant interest, finishing as a top-10 produces a 5.2% increase, while champions earn an
increase of 11% in applications (Pope & Pope, 2014). Overall, football and basketball success
raises application numbers by 2% to 8% on average for the top programs in the country (Pope &
Pope, 2009). Success generates increased interest in the schools from students who would
otherwise not be interested in the school (Goff, 2000). As with other benefits, the increased
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 33
interest is greatest for larger programs and conferences (Murphy et al. 2014). However, the
benefits of sports success on admissions and enrollment is short-lived (Pope & Pope, 2009).
Selectivity
With increases in applications, the ability of a university to be more selective naturally
rises (Mixon, Treviño, & Minto, 2004; Smith, 2009). Selectivity ratings are one of the primary
determinants for rankings by outside ranking systems such as those published by the U.S. News
and World Report (2013). As discussed above, with increased numbers in interest, applications
increase. Though additional applicants represent a range in SAT scores, the additional higher
SAT scores are used by schools to raise admitted students’ average academic scores (Pope &
Pope, 2009). Administrators at universities believe that athletic success increases the institution’s
ability of to attract students with higher academic value (Mixon et al., 2004). Schools can show
as much as a 17.7% increase in applications when teams raise their level of play from mediocre
to high (Chung, 2013). Research indicates that “a 25% increase in football wins would, on
average, result in a 1.3% increase in the number of admissions applications.” (Jones, 2009, p.
12). University of Florida application numbers increased to 25,000 after a 2006 national
championship in football and back to back national men’s basketball championships (Braddock
et al, 2008). Participation in a bowl game has a statistically significant impact on admissions
applications for male applicants—about 2.3% increase (Jones, 2009). Additional studies point
out that the effect is more important for students during their pre-senior year decision-making
process, as students are more affected by how well the college performed two or three years
before they enrolled (Chung, 2013; Smith, 2009).
Success in athletics brings additional local benefits to admissions. Perez (2012) noted a
0.05% increase in admission by local students with each individual win by the football program.
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 34
An additional advantage is the reduction in recruiting costs while increasing student scores as
more applications and better qualified people apply (Murphy et al., 2014). Yield, the percentage
of accepted applicants who actually enroll, does not increase, however. Admissions offices will
quickly point out that, even with increased numbers of applications coming in, the admission
yield, will decrease. Though they are able to be more selective, a lower percentage of students
will actually enroll, making it more difficult to predict student enrollment numbers and lowering
university rankings as yield is an important factor (Jones, 2009).
The effect of athletics on increased campus diversity is especially interesting. Black
students are about twice as likely to be influenced by success in basketball. Pope and Pope
(2014) discovered that a Final Four appearance in the NCAA basketball championships results in
a 13% increase of submitted scores by black students to a university versus a 5.7% increase for
the overall population. It was also discovered that black students increased their SAT/ACT score
submissions by 18.8% to the university that won the national NCAA basketball championship.
There is a bigger effect for out-of-state students than in-state students, which also negatively
affects yield (Jones, 2009). Additionally, Hispanic and Black students are more likely to be
positively influenced to applying to a university based on football success (Pope & Pope, 2014).
Increase in Standardized Testing Scores
Trenkamp (2009) illustrated that a school with a 75-year football tradition gets an
increase of over 63 points in SAT scores. Being affiliated with a major conference along with
high success rates can raise the SAT an additional 27 points. Chung (2013) observed a 4.8%
increase in SAT scores when athletics success improved. The increase is more pronounced with
private than public institutions, but both types of schools benefit (Perez, 2012). University of
Florida’s average applicant SAT score rose to 1400, out of a possible 2400, after its string of
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 35
national football and basketball championships. Schools with large sports programs have
undergraduates with higher academic scores than universities without (Braddock et al, 2008).
Successful football programs have a positive impact on academic quality by improving
graduation rates and SAT score levels. However, basketball programs do not display similar
effects as football in improving academics (Trenkamp, 2009). Additionally, Siegfried and Getz
(2012) found that athletics does not truly attract better students because highly favored academic
students choose not to attend big-time sports institutions.
Athletics as Selection Criteria
While admissions interest, selectivity, and incoming students’ test scores show significant
correlation with success in athletics, students rarely list athletics as a primary reason for being
attracted to, or for enrolling in, a college. Quality of athletics actually sits on the lower end of the
scale for applicants who are considering a school (Braddock et al., 2008). Broekemier (2002)
ranked athletics 30th, with a mean of 1.69 out of 5, or very unimportant, in a study of college
choice criteria. Athletics ranked last in college selection criteria for both students and parents
(Mansfield & Warwick, 2004). In choice selection criteria athletics ranked 17th of 17 with a
mean of 3 of 5 in a study by Broekemier and Seshadri (2000), and females’ ratings of athletics
were too low to be significant. Athletics is rarely identified as an important decision factor in
school selection (Pampaloni, 2010). Housing and athletics ranked unimportant when schools try
to attract older students (Broekemier, 2002). Athletics is not a major decision factor even for
student-athletes (Letawsky, Schneider, Pedersen, & Palmer, 2003). Pampaloni (2010) noted that
students look for a wide variety of things at one time—no single factor overcomes others on a
significant level.
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 36
While academic reputation is the most important factor for both athletes and non-athletes
(Letawsky et al., 2003) schools have to present a wide variety of enticements to prospective
students (Pampaloni, 2010). One of the few groups who rated athletics as important were out-of-
state students (Nadelson et al., 2013). Students did rate athletics higher than parents did and
males looked at non-academic factors with a greater interest (Broekemier & Seshadri, 2000). As
mentioned previously in student recruiting, black students are more likely to be influenced by
sports success than other students (Pope & Pope, 2009). Black males are more likely to consider
athletic reputation as a factor in selecting a college, especially males who participated in athletics
(Braddock et al, 2008). There is a concern that those who focus on athletics are often not as
beneficial for the school. Absher and Crawford (1996) refer to students who value athletics and
extra-curricular activities as good-timers. Students seeking universities for their social
experiences favor athletic reputation as a factor. This is also true for male students in general
(Braddock et al, 2008). Additionally, applicants who indicate that athletics have a higher
importance in university life have lower ACT scores on average and those students take fewer
credits per semester (Nadelson et al., 2013).
Athletes as Students
In many Division II and III universities, 10% to 25% of admissions slots are reserved for
athletes (Fried, 2007). One of the more prominent values identified for small Division II and
Division III colleges is the high percentage of students who are athletes. When schools recruit
athletes, they are, in essence, recruiting students. Division III schools have a larger percentage of
student-athletes on campus than Division I programs, and many have more athletic programs,
usually averaging a little under one additional sport (Beaver, 2014). This distinction results in
smaller schools seeking out athletes as a recruiting tool that, in many cases, helps the school
meet its enrollment goals. Therefore, athletic programs are used as a tool to help colleges attract
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 37
more athletes, and, thus, more students (Ashburn, 2007). Beaver (2014) pointed out that the
number of varsity athletes at a Football Bowl Series (FBS) school averages around 510 while a
Division III university sits at 427 student-athletes. That represents 2.5% for a student body with
an average of 19,010 for FBS schools and 25.2% of the student body for Division III institutions
with an average of 1,781 students. On average, a quarter of the student body at a Division III
school is made up of athletes. This is a significant percentage and, as schools compete to fill
enrollment, is an important resource for recruiting students to fill seats and pay tuition.
According to Beaver (2014), many Division III institutions would probably not survive without
athletic programs fueling admissions.
Division II and III sports programs also allow universities to bring in a more diverse
student population. Recruited athletes will leave their home cities to play in colleges far from
home. The increased diversity benefits the student body as a wider range of students come to
play sports (Jenkins, 2006). This benefit not only helps out the student body population, but it
also contributes to individual athletes, who have access to institutions they might not have been
able to get into otherwise (Williams et al., 2008). Division III schools sometimes even recruit
less athletic individuals who will not contribute to the program athletically or academically, but
who will pay tuition (Beaver, 2014).
There are some potential negative outcomes to recruiting athletes to fill student body
populations. If the school is competitive and a large number of applicants are turned away,
athletes, then, take seats from more academically qualified students. Larger schools, even
Division II and III should be cautious in utilizing athletics as a student recruitment tool (Fried,
2007). There is an increased risk of gender imbalance as football makes up one of the primary
athletic programs for DIII schools: on average, there are 104 more male athletes than female
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 38
athletes at DIII schools (Beaver, 2014). According to Title IX regulations, the school may be at
increased risk of non-compliance if additional spots for women are not created. Sometimes,
athletes take advantage of their admission based on athletics and discontinue playing shortly
after beginning school. For example, in Division II and III institutions, admissions offices and
coaches are equally frustrated by athletes who are admitted but, later, refuse to play (Fried,
2007). Additionally, male athletes have lower GPAs than their non-athlete counterparts, having a
GPA range of 2.65 to 2.74 (Beaver, 2014). Highly competitive institutions may run a risk of
lowering their academic standards and rankings by bringing in a large number of athletes.
Universities need to also be careful in potentially placing themselves at risk for Title IX
compliance issues in addition to lowering the overall academic standards of the institution. As
smaller schools consider athletics as a recruiting tool they should be cautious in ensuring that
they are not turning away academically qualified candidates.
Finance
While some institutions are able to operate under a fiscally sound bubble, earning more
revenue than they spend in costs, about 70% to 75% of universities generally operate in the red
and tap into student funding to support programs (Buer, 2009; Alexander & Kern, 2010; Stinson
et al., 2012). As mentioned before, many of the gains in financial success come after years of
futility and at great expense (Smith, 2012). For private schools, these costs are born by donors
and tuition rates, but public schools are heavily supported by state tax dollars (Alexander &
Kern, 2010) and many feel that public funds should not be used for the edutainment industry
(Buer, 2009; Gee, 2005). The indirect benefits realized in success come at a huge cost when
teams are not winning. University athletics cost a significant amount of money. According to
Weaver (2015) there will be $400 million of new money infused into universities through big-
time athletics, mostly going to the top programs in the country. Cable network deals will bring in
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 39
$5 to $10 million per school in the conferences that host the largest programs and the Big Ten
Network was expected to bring in as much as $37 million per school in the 2017-2018 year
(Weaver, 2015). In 2005, Orszag and Orszag (2005) found that Division I-A schools average
close to $29.5 million annually; by comparison, Division II schools manage an athletic budget of
an average of $1.7 to $2.6 million annually, depending on whether they host football programs.
Weaver (2015) pointed out that, when coaches and athletic directors find money, it is
only so they can spend more money; they are not trying to raise funds for the university. The
finance of big-time athletics becomes alluring, and administrators consistently look to find new
sources of revenue to help support the university, and athletics is one of these sources (Franco &
Pessoa, 2014). Spending for athletic programs has outpaced spending on education by two or
three times in the last several years (Sperber, 2008). Orszag and Orszag (2005), declared that,
when schools make decisions for athletics, they rarely conduct detailed data examinations and
economic cost-benefit analyses as increases in spending do not grow revenue appreciatively. In
Division II schools, increased spending may even result in a greater loss of revenue (Orszag &
Orszag, 2005). The very nature of zero-sum valuation in university sports means that, when a
university has a great season, another university has a poor one, and the big winner is equalized
by the big loser (Matheson, O’Connor, & Herberger, 2012).
Monetary Earnings
USA Today (Berkowitz et al., 2014) published a chart of the 2013 costs, revenues, and
subsidies for publicly funded Division I athletic programs. Investment costs refer to all operating
expenses for athletic programs. Revenues are usually derived from ticket sales, contributions,
rights/licensing, advertising, TV, bowl games, internet streaming, and so forth. Subsidies refer to
student fees, institutional support, and state money. According to the NCAA, subsidies are any
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 40
funds allocated to supporting athletics that were not generated by the athletic program. In 2013,
the highest investment by any university, the University of Texas, into its athletic program
totaled out to $146,807,585. In return, the University of Texas realized a revenue of
$18,883,901. The highest revenue-generating program was Ohio State University whose total of
$23,612,978 on an $116,026,329 investment just edged out the University of Alabama, who
spent a similar $116,607,913 to return revenues of $27,168,637. However, Alabama also
subsidized their athletics program with an additional $5,791,200 from state or student resources,
lowering their overall revenue to $21,377,437. These examples show a rate of return ranging
from 12% to 21%, but they represent a small percentage of successful programs. Of the 230
programs listed in the report, only 126, approximately 55% of the programs, realized positive
revenue generation. However, when subsidies (student fees, institutional support, and state tax
monies) are removed from the revenue totals, only 20 schools, or about 9% see a profit from
their programs. The validity of removing subsidies from net revenue and the potentially negative
impact of subsidies on the student body are discussed later in this section.
At the other end of the revenue spectrum, a far different reality is realized. For example,
among the 91% of universities losing money is the University of Colorado, showing negative
$7,993,152 in net revenue loss. With a combined investment of $73,424,933 (expenses plus
subsidy) the return on investment was a negative 23%. Rutgers University, the oldest collegiate
football program in the country, shows an investment of $78,989,475 and a return of
$78,989,475, for a net zero gain/loss. However, the Rutgers program is heavily subsidized at
$46,996,697 from state, student, and institutional support. This places Rutgers at the bottom of
the total revenue scale with a loss of $46,996,697 or a negative 60% return. While some large
college sports programs manage to make money, the great majority of them end up losing money
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 41
on athletics while they rely on subsidies to help them balance the budget. In fairness, it can be
difficult to parse out actual spending on athletics because detailed accounting practices are not
required, nor are they present in athletic programs. It is exceptionally difficult to determine
actual profit and loss for universities because of the lack of public information available and
because of different standards of reporting at different institutions (Matheson, et al., 2012).
Subsidies
Orszag and Orszag (2005) encourage researchers to not include subsidies when
examining net revenue of an athletic program. They found that qualitative conclusions are more
reliable when subsidies are removed. Some researchers took this idea further, finding that
including subsidies as revenue help universities to justify their budgets by showing a balance at
the end of the year. Athletic programs appear to do well, until subsidies and contributions are
removed from the equation (Matheson et al., 2012). These funds come from resources that could
be spent on academic or student needs instead of athletic support (Sperber, 2008). Subsidized
funds come mainly from state tax dollars, tuition, tuition waivers, and federal work study
programs as well as university-supported facility costs (Berkowitz et al., 2014). Essentially,
students, taxes, and tuition dollars are supporting the high costs of athletic programming for 90%
of all public universities (Siegfried & Getz, 2012). In a 2014 analysis of university athletic
spending ,Rosas and Orazem (2014) found that the 40 lowest revenue-generating programs
averaged nearly $6 million per year in annual subsidies.
Profit and Loss
There are multiple methods to determine a program’s profit and loss. Regardless of how
it is examined, in general, university athletics do not raise money for universities, profit
generation is not a value of university athletics (Matheson et al., 2012). One of the difficulties is
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 42
determining actual cost of student-aid packages because student-aid packages do not often meet
the actual cost of attendance even though the athletic program notes the full tuition cost as an
expense. It is different for each university, as multiple factors exist to determine the actual cost
involved, such as meeting enrollment caps, partial tuitions, and in or out-of-state tuition
(Matheson et al., 2012). Universities use a variety of factors to determine profits or losses, and
those factors are not always available for scrutiny (Sperber, 2008).
University Integrity
Perhaps the biggest challenge to gaining the advantages found in successful athletic
programs is the pressure on universities to bypass rules in order to ensure athletic success
(Morris, 2013). Universities struggle to justify the increasing costs of athletic programs;
therefore, successful programs and athletic performance assist their cause. Revenue-producing
sports are often the most challenging to the integrity of a university (Van Rheenen, 2012). As
there is an economic benefit to the university, rule-makers and enforcers—typically the board,
administration, and coaches, may feel it is necessary to bend rules or ignore infractions
(Benjamin, 2004). There is a risk that academic integrity will be challenged for the greater good
of the school (Brand, 2006). Economics have become more important than academics
(Campbell, 2015). Often, academic standards are lowered to admit athletes due to pressure to
win more games (LaForge & Hodge, 2011). A potential student-athlete’s athletic abilities should
not justify admissions (Campbell, 2015).
Some researchers pointed out that the combination of a high-pressure environment and
the lack of adequate value assessment tools for college athletics creates an environment that
discourages integrity. For example, according to Dimitriadis (2012), excellence has too many
measurements; instead of being based on culture, academics, values, and morals, it becomes
about athletics success, branding, and sales. Universities have become overly competitive in their
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 43
desire to be ranked higher (Morris, 2013). According to Campbell (2015), in a commentary
published in the Chronicle of Higher Education, “Colleges would have greater freedom to
moderate resource commitments without the pressures of the national-championship “arms race”
while still endorsing highly competitive conference play” (para.14). There are no reliable or
consistent evaluations offered for universities to meet or define values for athletics outside of
overall performance results (Dixon & Cunningham, 2003). The desire for excellence has
overcome the need to maintain character and integrity (Dimitriadis, 2012). The culture of the
school as a place where value, morals, and integrity can be taught is easily ignored under the
pressure to grow financially and gain prestige (Gee, 2005; Meyer, 2005). Intercollegiate athletics
is subordinate to the mission of universities’ educational missions; therefore, universities should
not sacrifice their mission in order to meet athletic goals (Campbell, 2015).
Athlete Exploitation
Athletes have become a tool for financial gain and often feel exploited. Athletes admitted
for athletic ability often feel quantified instead of valued as a student (Van Rheenen, 2012).
Helping athletes feel academically valuable will not only help them be more successful in their
studies, but also encourages future contributions toward higher education (Cunningham & Sagas,
2005; Holmes et al., 2008). Van Rheenen (2012) stated, “an investment in intercollegiate
athletics should always be reflected in an institution’s full investment in its college athletes” (p.
565). In other words, student-athletes should be students first and receive every opportunity to be
successful academically. One of the recent findings by researchers indicates that athletes given
admission despite low academic scores need specialized assistance to ensure success. If they are
dropped from their team, they lose the additional support to be successful—the opposite of the
desired effect (Weiss & Robinson, 2013).
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 44
This is especially true for athletes of color, who have lower graduation rate than their
white counterparts (Cunningham & Sagas, 2005). Universities striving to increase equitable
access to students of color often utilize athletic programs to increase diversity (Van Rheenen,
2012). When students from diverse backgrounds feel that they are used only for athletic success
and not valued as students, they are less invested in their academic work (Cunningham & Sagas,
2005). However, Van Rheenen (2012) specifies that the current state of athletes as a commodity
also has the potential to make positive change in the life of student-athletes and the cultures they
come from.
Though the vast majority of athletes in Division I programs receive scholarships in
exchange for their athletic participation, one of the primary criticisms surrounding collegiate
athletics is the lack of adequate monetary remuneration when compared to the amount of money
they bring in to the university. There is a claim that athletes have not received adequate re-
imbursement for the services they provide to their schools (Weaver, 2015). Around 60% of
men’s basketball players contribute more to the school than they receive by way of scholarship
money and attendance benefit. College basketball players who become professional players
nearly always bring in significantly more money than they receive, averaging around $400,000
in income gained for the university (Lane, Nagel, & Netz, 2014).
Graduation Rates
Universities receiving federal funding utilize graduation rates as a measure of academic
performance as stipulated in the 1990 Student Right-to-Know and Campus Security Act (Pike &
Graunke, 2015). Six-year graduation rates are utilized to determine the Federal Graduation Rate
(FGR). The FGR states that a student shall be considered a completed student if the student
graduates within 150% of the normal, 4-year time standard. Therefore, a 6-year graduation rate is
determined by the percentage of students at a university who graduate within 6 years of their
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 45
initial fall enrollment. Graduation rates are an important factor in rating a university’s academic
performance (LaForge & Hodge, 2011).
Campbell (2015) and LaForge and Hodge (2011) noted that universities often lower their
academic standards to bring in skilled athletes in order to improve the performance of an athletic
team. Brand (2006) warned that universities risk their academic integrity in order to win games.
Some researchers found that there is a negative correlation between higher rankings in football
and graduation rates (Tucker, 2004). However, some researchers point out that college athletes
often graduate at higher rates than the general student body (Van Rheenen, 2012), and this is
especially true for smaller colleges. Division II student-athletes who are active on their teams
will progress to graduation at higher rates than their non-athlete counterparts (Weiss &
Robinson, 2013). On a larger scale, all students, not just student-athletes, at universities with
successful athletics programs also benefit. Tucker (2004) states that there is a statistical
relationship illustrating a positive relationship between football success and graduation rates;
probably occurring because students are more satisfied with their college experience and more
likely to stay enrolled (Sung, Koo, Kim, & Dittmore, 2015). Students who identify with college
athletic programs as a fan are more likely to identify as a part of the university, and are less
likely to drop out. When athletic programs are present, students also have higher levels of self-
worth and perceived academic competencies (Sung et al., 2015). This is referred to as the
positive affect of college sports—students feel good about school because of their fan
experiences (Nickerson, Diener, & Schwarz, 2011). Tucker (2004) noted the positive effect that
university affiliation can have on self-worth and perception of ability. Lack of association is one
of the primary reasons students cite as a reason for dropping out (Sung et al., 2015).

ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 46
Student Life and College Experience
Social Benefits
When discussing the benefits of sports programs at colleges and universities, students
will often cite the social advantages they gain from having athletics. Researchers support these
claims, noting that affiliation with a college program generates positive social interactions
among peers (Sung et al., 2015). Athletic success promotes a positive effect on student life and
perception about the university experience (Nickerson et al., 2011). Social life is often the main
component of a student’s calendar (Lifschitz et al., 2014), and students who positively identify
with their college have higher perceptions of self-worth and academic abilities, which promotes
academic achievement (Sung et al., 2015). Strong athletic programs build tradition and a culture
of celebration. (Clopton, 2007). The affiliation gained from being a supporter helps students
identify themselves as a part of the university social environment (Sung et al., 2015). This is
especially important for students who are transitioning into the university environment. Students
who support a university athletic program are more likely to become integrated into the
community and culture (Clopton, 2007). Sung et al., (2015) stated that, “With these studies in
mind, the benefit of identifying toward intercollegiate athletic programs should be considered a
major goal of higher education” (p. 48). Clopton (2007), recommended that universities
encourage promotion of Olympic-style sports rather than the traditional football and basketball
programs to encourage a more intimate and supportive community environment.
Conversely, not having strong associative ties with other students can lead to students not
receiving their degree (Sung et al., 2015). Another concern is that students can become overly
attached to a university campus environment and persist instead of graduating (Clopton, 2007).
The positive benefits are not necessarily distributed evenly. Smaller schools have an inherently
higher sense of community without the inclusion of athletics. In other words, students at
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 47
universities without major athletic programs initially feel a stronger sense of community than do
students who attend larger universities (Clopton, 2007).
Community
One of the major interested parties of university athletic programs is the community that
surrounds and supports the school. Athletics provides entertainment for both students and the
surrounding community (Williams et al., 2008). In a number of important ways, athletics ties a
community to the college (Jenkins, 2006). Whether discussing the hometown of the university or
a more geographically distributed fan-base, there is an increase in community pride when teams
are successful (Williams et al., 2008). Sports programs attract more people to the campus,
including families and community members, giving the university more opportunities to interact
and develop funding resources (Franco & Pessoa, 2014). Community colleges often support
theater and art programs for the sake of diversity of learners and should support athletics also
(Jenkins, 2006). In addition to the universities, the community quality of life may also improve
(Baade, Baumann, & Matheson, 2011). According to Siegfried and Getz (2012) “The biggest
advantage of spectator sports to colleges and universities may be the sense of wider community
that they promote” (p. 58).
Community Revenue
Surprisingly to most researchers, a community may not always benefit economically
from the inclusion of a big-time athletic program. Most researchers argue that the negative
economic impact either outweighs the revenue gain, or is so little that the risk and investment is
not worth the effort. Baade, Baumann, and Matheson, (2008) stated that, “Although successful
college football teams may bring fame to their home towns, fortune appears to be a bit more
elusive” (p. 641). For example, regression analyses in Florida for college basketball do not
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 48
illustrate increased taxable sales due to collegiate sporting events. In some cases, the results
showed a negative impact on local economies (Baade et al., 2011). Local receipts for non-event
related sales such as grocery items, hardware, auto repair, and entertainment, often go down on
game days because of displaced locals (Siegfried & Getz, 2012). Athletics does have a slight
positive impact on the hospitality industry, though the extent is not as great as estimated and is
difficult to measure with exactness (Lentz & Laband, 2009). Football for major programs can
positively affect the economy, although it may come at the cost of losing other economic
contributors such as regular shopping, tourism, and entertainment revenue (Baade et al., 2011).
Economic benefit to a community surrounding a stadium is negligible if it is even positive
(Maxcy & Larson, 2015).
The major benefit of a new stadium is increased media exposure (Maxcy & Larson,
2015). Maxcy and Larson (2015) noted that the most inefficiently used building on campus is the
stadium. Overall economic impact is difficult to study as collegiate programs do not move
around from area to area and develop, over a long range of time, in one general population,
preventing before and after studies (Baade et al., 2008). However, studies that have been
conducted indicate a more negative impact than a positive one (Lentz & Laband, 2009). There is
no significant positive impact to local economies when college football games are played in local
stadiums (Baade et al., 2008). The gain, in relation to the numbers of people involved is
exceptionally modest. Considering fan bases of 70,000 to 100,000, a gain of only 2 million
dollars is negligible (Baade et al., 2011). Economic benefits to the local economy often do not
account for some of the negative impacts, like local community members leaving the area to
shop to avoid game-day crowds (Baade et al., 2008). Coates and Depken (2011) found a modest
gain for some regular season football games of about $56,000. However, they also found reduced
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 49
sales tax revenues of $1.2 million for a university bowl game and $237,000 for a National
Football League game. Stadium building is often the center of economic controversy, with the
value to the community being a key factor in discussions. However, because of associated
increased spending on athletics the net financial gain on building a stadium is minimal.
Summary
There are a number of benefits and values that are visible for universities hosting athletic
programs. However, the benefits are not universally distributed. Larger universities, especially
those with big-time athletic programs are more likely to receive financial benefits and increased
brand awareness. Large school athletic programs that have victorious teams, especially when
participating in conference and national championship games, often see an increase in
admissions applications. The increased numbers of applicants often results in higher admission
standards and increased average academic scores. Those increases can then improve a school’s
academic ranking. Big-time programs participating in the largest conferences also enjoy an
improved academic perception over schools in smaller conferences.
Large and small university student-bodies alike benefit from the positive social
interactions and sense of belonging that occur when students participate as fans and supporters of
their college teams. The positive effect of cheering for programs help students gain a sense of
identity that is connected to the university. When students identify themselves as being a part of
a college community their belief in self and ability increases. Research also indicates that the
presence of athletic programs increases graduation rates for all students in a school. Another oft
noted benefit of athletic programs at colleges is for the community living in the vicinity of the
campus. Community pride and entertainment are important factors to be considered when
discussing collegiate athletic benefits. However, the economic benefit of college athletic contests
being hosted in a community is heavily debated. Sports economists offer competing arguments
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 50
concerning the financial benefits of games being played in venues that exist in civic and
shopping areas as the event itself often drives shoppers away.
For smaller colleges and universities, athletics plays a significant role in reaching
enrollment goals. Because of school size differences, smaller colleges have a much higher
percentage of athletes on campus. Athletic programs can be responsible for bringing in a large
percentage of students. Division III schools have an average of about 25% of the students that
are athletes (Beaver, 2014). Recruited athletes are often more diverse than the non-athlete
student body. Because a higher percentage of students are athletes, smaller colleges need to be
aware of potential gender imbalances and ensuring that recruited athletes have the educational
foundational skills to be successful.
Financing collegiate athletics can be challenging for many schools. In larger schools
about 25% of the programs are financially sound. The majority operate with negative balances
and must rely on subsidies, money that could be spent on other university needs, to balance their
budget. Some schools spend substantial amounts of money in order to maintain athletic
programs. When examining athletic department funding models it is important to weigh the total
amount of subsidies being used to maintain programs.

ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 51
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
The intent of this study was to discover differences between larger and smaller university
athletic programs. The research indicates that many of the studied benefits of athletics are unique
to larger schools and, especially, big-time programs. As noted in Chapter Two, only a small
percentage of large university athletic programs realize enough revenue to cover their spending
and subsidies. Smaller athletic programs spend anywhere from several thousands of dollars to
millions of dollars per year to maintain athletics. With the increasing costs of supporting athletic
programs, higher education institutions need to be able to justify why they continue to support
athletics when they are not able to cover their costs through revenue the same ways that large
school athletic programs do.
Research Questions
Three research questions were asked in conducting this study:
1. What are the primary values that university administrators at smaller institutions
identify for collegiate athletic programs?
2. What differences do university administrators recognize between large university
athletic programs and smaller university programs?
3. Is there an academic benefit for all students, not just athletes, in attending a college
where athletic programs are present?
Hypothesis
The hypothesis of this study was that there is a positive effect on the undergraduate
students’ academic performance when higher education institutions host athletic programs—a
higher percentage of athletes in the undergraduate population will correlate with improved 6-year
graduation rates. The 6-year graduation rate for a university, as discussed in Chapter Two,
indicates the number of undergraduates who complete their education within 150% of the
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 52
expected 4-year graduation time standard. The null hypothesis is that there is no correlation
between the percentage of athletes in the student body and the 6-year graduation rate for all
students at the institution.
An explanatory sequential study design (Creswell, 2013) was utilized for this research.
Figure 2 illustrates the step-by-step process specific to this design. Figure 2 illustrates the step-
by-step process with parts of the study inserted into the graph. The first phase consisted of a
quantitative analysis of correlational data examining the percentage of athletes in the student
body at a university with the 6-year graduation rate. Following the correlational analysis, a
qualitative analysis of interview data with university and athletic leadership was conducted to
explain the correlational results.

Figure 2. Explanatory Sequential Design Study. Outline the process for explaining correlation of
graduation rates and the percent of athletes on campus with analysis of interview data (Creswell,
2013).
Sample and Population
For the first phase of the study, all colleges and universities who participate in Division I,
II, and III of NCAA athletics were utilized. Table ` shows the schools listed by NCAA division.
The only exceptions were any institutions that did not report or have incomplete data. Using a
high percentage of the population reduces the chance of a Type II error (Salkind, 2014) and is
Interview
Themes and
Common
Ideas
Analyzed
Correlations:
Six-Year Grad
Rates and %
Athletes on
Campus
Positive
Correlational
Relationships
Found
How Do
Themes and
Ideas Explain
Correlation
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 53
feasible because of the finite amount of colleges available in each category and the availability of
data because of the1990 Student Right-to-Know Act (Pike & Graunke, 2015).
NCAA Institutions
Table 1
NCAA Institutions by Division; Institution Undergraduate Population, 2013-2014

Schools Number of
Undergraduates Range
Average Total
undergraduates
NCAA Division I-A 127 1,762 - 42,017 18,245 2,317,135
NCAA Division I-AA 122 1,026 - 27,342 7,513 916,606
NCAA Division I-AAA 97 1,718 - 29,274 8,162 791,771
NCAA Division II- With Football 165 632 - 19,083 3,642 601,003
NCAA Division II- Without Football 143 375 - 24,157 3,810 544,790
NCAA Division III- With Football 242 386 - 13,755 2,525 609,136
NCAA Division III- Without Football 178 264 - 23,450 2,705 481,465
Total 1,074

5830 6,261,906
Note. Data adapted from the United States Department of Education’s Office of Postsecondary Education’s website
Equity in Athletics Data Analysis Cutting Tool. Website is http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/Index.aspx, retrieved 2016,
February 18.
Table 2 outlines the numbers of NCAA Division I, II, and III schools in each of the
Carnegie size classifications (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2010).
There are four categories of populations:
 VS4: Very small four-year (fewer than 1000 degree-seeking students)
 S4:Small four-year (1,000-2,999 degree-seeking students)
 M4: Medium four-year (3,000-9,999 degree-seeking students)
 L4: Large four-year (10,000 or more degree-seeking students)

ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 54
Table 2
NCAA Institutions by Carnegie Classification: Size; Undergraduate Population 2013-2014
Carnegie Classification NCAA
Schools
Number of
Undergraduates Range
Average Total
undergraduates
Very Small (N = < 1000) 101 264 - 993 745 75,247
Small (N = 1,000-2999) 441 1,001 - 2,999 1,851 816,077
Medium (N = 3,000-9,999) 348 3,010 - 9,901 5,702 1,984,586
Large (N = > 10,000) 184 10,021 - 42,017 18,402 3,385,996
Total 1,074

5,830 6,261,906
Note. Data adapted from the United States Department of Education’s Office of Postsecondary Education’s website
Equity in Athletics Data Analysis Cutting Tool. Website is http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/Index.aspx, retrieved 2016,
February 18.
Athletic Administration
For the qualitative component of this study, interviews were conducted with a
convenience sample of athletic conference and university executive administrators. These
individuals served as university or conference presidents, vice-presidents, and athletic directors;
and they were selected from a variety of geographical areas and divisions. A mix of both private
and public school administrators were interviewed. These individuals were chosen because of
their connection to university athletic programs and because they have a professional history of
working directly with athletics. These individuals each represent athletic programs from small
university athletic programs. Table 3 presents more detailed information about interviewees.
Specific information regarding responses and identifying information is intentionally not
included in this description to protect the confidentiality of those who were interviewed.

ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 55
Table 3
Information about University and Athletics Administrators Interviewed for this Study
Descriptive Information about Interviewees N
Gender Male 4
Female 1

Institution Type Public 1
Private 3
Conference Representative for Public/Private 1

Job Type University President 1
Athletic Director/Administrator 3
Conference Commissioner 1

Conference Pacific West 3
Ivy League 1
Capital Athletic 1

Instrumentation
The quantitative analysis instrument for phase one of the quantitative analysis was the
IBM SPSS data analysis program. Data collected from IPEDS and OPE regarding school size,
athlete population, and graduation data were examined for correlation. The dependent variables
for the data analysis was graduation rates. The independent variables were school size and the
percentage of athletes present in the student body. Colleges and universities were separated by
size according to Carnegie population sizing classifications (Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching, 2010). A Pearson r score (r), measuring the strength of the linear
association between the percent of athletes on campus and 6-year graduation rates was generated
for each sizing classification. A regression coefficient for percentage of athletes on campus (β)
and significance is shown. The Pearson r is used to test the null hypothesis that there is no
correlation between the percentage of athletes in the student body and the 6-year graduation rate
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 56
for all students at the institution. When null hypothesis could be rejected, a regression coefficient
was presented along with significance of regression.
For the interviews in phase two, an interview guide as outlined below and shown in
Appendix B, was utilized to direct interviews of university administrators. Interviews were
conducted face to face when possible. If face-to-face interviews were not possible, then video
conferencing or phone interviews were used. Interviews were narrative to allow for a complete
range of shared experiences. Individual interviews ranged in time from 45 to just over 90
minutes, depending on length and depth of responses.
Protocol:
A. Data Collection:
1. Name of interviewee
2. Name of institution
3. Survey type (face to face, video conference, phone call)
4. Job type of interviewee
5. Educational background of interviewee
6. Experience of interviewee in higher education and athletics
B. Interview Questions
1. What are some differences that you recognize between larger university athletic
programs and smaller college athletic programs?
2. What is your highest priority, or the most important value measurement, for a
university or college athletic program?
3. What are some additional benefits that universities can realize from hosting athletics?
How do you know these benefits exist?
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 57
4. How do athletes effect recruiting and admissions in the programs you work with?
5. What role does athletics play in student life?
6. Are there any academic benefits to the university in hosting athletic programs and
what are they?

ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 58
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS
Chapter Four is presented in three parts. The first part discusses results of the
correlational analysis of the percentage of athletes in a university student body population with
overall 6-year graduation rates. Part two provides an analysis of interview data with university
and athletic leadership to provide evidence that can explain correlational findings. Part three
examines the evidence to provide an explanation for the results of the correlational analyses. It
should be noted that correlational analyses are separated according to the size category of the
colleges and universities analyzed according to Carnegie size classifications (Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2010). Any correlation, and description of the
correlation if applicable, is defined within each classification area.
A summary of the correlational analyses is provided after each size classification.
Following the correlational data, an analysis of interview data is shared, responding to each of
the research questions. A final interpretation completes the research design, illustrating how
themes and ideas presented in the interview findings supports correlational findings.
The focus of this study was to determine the differences between large and small college
athletic programs as stated by athletic administrators in smaller colleges. This analysis attempts
to answer the following research questions:
1. What are the primary values that university administrators at smaller institutions
identify for collegiate athletic programs?
2. What differences do university administrators recognize between large university
athletic programs and smaller university programs?
3. Is there an academic benefit for all students, not just athletes, in attending a college
where athletic programs are present?

ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 59
Part One: Quantitative Data
As the design of this study was focused on an explanatory sequential mixed-method
(Creswell, 2013), the first phase is an examination of correlations between the percentage of
athletes in a student population with the overall 6-year graduation rate for the institution.
Universities were categorized according to the size as determined by the Carnegie Classification
of Higher Education (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2010). Graduation
rate data were gathered through IPEDS. Each institution was listed individually by a unit
identification number (UNITID), institution name, and 6-year graduation rate (6 Year %). The
data determining percentage of athletes at an institution were downloaded from the OPE’s (2015)
website utilizing the “Equity in Athletics Data Analysis Cutting Tool.” Institutional data
included UNITID, institution name, classification name, total undergraduates, and total number
of athletes.
The data were combined utilizing Microsoft Excel’s VLOOKUP function by matching
UNITID information. A visual check ensuring that institution name was also included to ensure
that data matching were correctly performed. Once the data were combined, non-NCAA athletic
programs were eliminated as well as NCAA programs that did not have graduation rates listed in
the IPEDS (2016) database. Total undergraduate student populations were divided by the number
of unduplicated student-athletes at an institution. Following the elimination of non-relevant
intuitions, the data were separated by Carnegie size classifications (Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching, 2010). Data were then input into the IBM SPSS data analysis
software.
Six-year graduation rates were listed for each institution in the IPEDS system. Six-year
graduation rates are reported by each institution as a requirement of the 1990 Student Right-to-
Know Act (Pike & Graunke, 2015). Six-year graduation refers to any student who graduates
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 60
within 150% of the expected time to complete an undergraduate degree (U.S. Department of
Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2014). Six-
year graduation rates were selected because the NCAA utilizes the 6-year graduation rate to
measure athlete graduation rates in its own internal reporting (NCAA, 2016).
Results for the correlation of percentage of athletes within a student body and the overall
undergraduate graduation rate for all students are listed in Tables 4 through 7 and are separated
into Carnegie classification size type. The data are shown in a descriptive table, indicating the
number of schools within the Carnegie classification type by size, with results from the
measurement of the percentage of athletes and the 6-year graduation rate. Results include
minimum (min) and maximum (max) scores, as well as the mean (M) and standard deviation
(SD) for each measurement area. For each set of descriptive data, a table presenting correlational
value indicated by a Pearson r score (r), a regression coefficient for percentage of athletes on
campus (β) and the significance are presented. The R-squared (r²) value is indicated on the chart
following the table. The Pearson r was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no correlation
between the percentage of athletes in the student body and the 6-year graduation rate for all
students at the institution. When null hypothesis could be rejected, the regression coefficient was
tested along with significance to test for significance of the coefficient.
Participants
All universities and colleges that have NCAA athletic programs with graduation data,
regardless of their division or size were included in this analysis (note: five NCAA programs for
the year 2013-2014 were not included in this study because of a lack of available graduation
data). Table10 lists the number of NCAA universities and colleges by division. Table 11
illustrates the number of universities and colleges as determined by Carnegie classification
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 61
(Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2010) sizing specifications. The total
number of universities and colleges examined in this study was 1,074. The average number of
students at these institutions was 5,860. The total number of undergraduate students was
6,261,906 students. There are seven NCAA divisions and four Carnegie classification sizes.
Very Small Size Schools Data
As Table 4 illustrates, there are 101 NCAA institutions with fewer than 1,000 students. A
descriptive analysis shows a minimum percentage of athletes on campus of 8.30% and the
maximum at 64.43% with the mean being M = 31.50%. The standard deviation from the mean is
SD =13.18%. Six-year graduation rates are 8% at minimum and 92% at maximum with a mean
6-year graduation rate of M = 46.64%. The standard deviation from the mean is SD =13.82%.
Table 4
Very Small Sized NCAA Schools Population and Graduation Rate Data 2013-2014

N min max M SD
Percentage of Athletes on Campus 101 8.30% 64.43% 31.50% 13.18%
Six-year Graduation Rate 101 8% 92% 46.64% 13.82%

The Pearson r for percentage of student-athletes to the 6-year graduation rate is r =0.007,
indicating no appreciable measurement. The null hypothesis cannot be rejected as no correlation
was found. Figure 3 illustrates the lack of significant regression coefficient line as described by
the low Pearson r score.
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 62

Figure 3. Scatterplot Graph for Very Small Sized Four-Year Colleges and Universities.
Percentage of undergraduates who graduated within six years is shown on Y-axis of chart with
total percentage of athletes on campus displayed on X-axis. Regression line is shown with slope
formula at center of graph. R² value is at top right corner.

Small-Sized Schools Data
As Table 5 illustrates, there are 441 NCAA institutions with 1,000 to 2999 students. A
descriptive analysis shows a minimum percentage of athletes on campus of 2.70% and a
maximum of 52.54% with the mean being M = 20.99%. The standard deviation from the mean is
SD = 8.95%. Six-year graduation rates are 14% at minimum and 96% at maximum with a mean
6-year graduation rate of M = 57.44%. The standard deviation from the mean is SD = 18.24%.

ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 63
Table 5
Small Sized NCAA Schools Population and Graduation Rate Data 2013-2014

N min max M SD
Percentage of Athletes on Campus 441 2.70% 52.54% 20.99% 18.95%
Six-year Graduation Rate 441 14% 96% 57.44% 18.24%

The Pearson r for percentage of student-athletes to the 6-year graduation rate is r = 0.263
and the null hypothesis can be rejected for small schools, as a small correlation exists at P< 0.05.
The Pearson r measurement indicates that, for small-sized universities, there is a small positive
correlation between the percentage of athletes on campus and the 6-year graduation rate. The
regression coefficient for percentage athletes on campus is β = 0.535, indicating a 0.53% rise in
6-year graduation rates per every 1% rise in the percentage of athletes on campus. The R-squared
score is r² = 0.069 and signifies that about 6.9% of the rise in graduation rates can be attributed
to the percentage of athletes on campus. The finding is significant at P< 0.001. Figure 4 is a
scatterplot chart illustrating 6-year graduation rates in relation to the percentage of athletes of the
undergraduate population at small schools. A regression coefficient line with slope formula
description at center is also shown.
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 64

Figure 4. Scatterplot Graph for Small Sized Four-Year Colleges and Universities. Percentage of
undergraduates who graduated within six years is shown on Y-axis of chart with total percentage
of athletes on campus displayed on X-axis. Regression line is shown with slope formula at center
of graph. R² value is at top right corner.

Medium-Sized Schools Data
Table 6 illustrates there are there are 348 NCAA institutions with 3,000t o 9,999 students.
A descriptive analysis shows a minimum percentage of athletes on campus of 1.31% and a
maximum of 22.00% with the mean being M = 7.20%. The standard deviation from the mean is
SD = 3.64%. Six-year graduation rates are 12% at minimum and 97% at maximum with a mean
6-year graduation rate of M = 55.48%. The standard deviation from the mean is SD = 18.85%.

ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 65
Table 6
Medium Sized NCAA Schools Population and Graduation Rate Data 2013-2014

N min max M SD
Percentage of Athletes on Campus 348 1.31% 22.00% 7.20% 3.64%
Six-year Graduation Rate 348 12% 97% 55.48% 18.85%

The Pearson r for percentage of student-athletes to the 6-year graduation rate is r = 0.439
and the null hypothesis can be rejected for medium schools as a medium correlation exists at P<
0.05. The Pearson r measurement indicates that, for medium-sized universities, there is a
medium positive correlation between the percentage of athletes on campus and the 6-year
graduation rate. The regression coefficient for percentage athletes on campus is β = 2.27
indicating a 2.27% rise in six6year graduation rates per every 1% rise in the percentage of
athletes on campus. The R-squared score is r² = 0.192 and signifies that about 19% of the rise in
graduation rates can be attributed to the percentage of athletes on campus. The finding is
significant at P< 0.001. Figure 5 is a scatterplot chart illustrating 6-year graduation rates in
relation to the percentage of athletes of the undergraduate population at medium schools. A
regression coefficient line with slope formula description at center is also shown.
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 66

Figure 5. Scatterplot Graph for Medium Sized Four-Year Colleges and Universities. Percentage
of undergraduates who graduated within six years is shown on Y-axis of chart with total
percentage of athletes on campus displayed on X-axis. Regression line is shown with slope
formula at center of graph. R² value is at top right corner

Large-Sized Schools Data
Table 7 illustrates there are 148 NCAA institutions with more than 9,999 students. A
descriptive analysis shows a minimum percentage of athletes on campus of 0.98% and a
maximum of 9.09% with the mean being M = 2.64%. The standard deviation from the mean is
SD = 1.05%. Six-year graduation rates are 17% at minimum and 96% at maximum with a mean
6-year graduation rate of M = 60.89%. The standard deviation from the mean is SD = 16.18%.

ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 67
Table 7
Large Sized NCAA Schools Population and Graduation Rate Data 2013-2014

N min max M SD
Percentage of Athletes on Campus 184 .98% 9.09% 2.64% 1.05%
Six-year Graduation Rate 184 17% 96% 60.89% 16.18%

The Pearson r for percentage of student-athletes to the 6-year graduation rate is r = .221
and the null hypothesis can be rejected for large schools, as a small correlation exists at P< 0.05.
The Pearson r measurement indicates that, for large-sized universities, there is a small positive
correlation between the percentage of athletes on campus and the 6-year graduation rate. The
regression coefficient for percentage athletes on campus is β = 3.41 indicating a 3.41% rise in 6-
year graduation rates per every 1% rise in the percentage of athletes on campus. The R-squared
score is r² = .049 and signifies that about 5% of the rise in graduation rates can be attributed to
the percentage of athletes on campus. Finding is significant at P< .005. Figure 6 is a scatterplot
chart illustrating 6-year graduation rates in relation to the percentage of athletes of the
undergraduate population at large schools. A regression coefficient line with slope formula
description at center is also shown.
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 68

Figure 6. Scatterplot graph for large sized four-year colleges and universities. Percentage of
undergraduates who graduated within six years is shown on Y-axis of chart with total percentage
of athletes on campus displayed on X-axis. Regression line is shown with slope formula at center
of graph. R² value is at top right corner

Part One Summary

The data displayed in Table 8 indicate that, when certain undergraduate population sizing
conditions exist, there is a small to medium correlation between the percentage of athletes on a
university campus and the 6-year graduation rate for the entire student body. As mentioned, the
correlation is dependent on the size of the institution.
For very small sized schools, there is no significant correlation, with an insignificant
positive Pearson score of r < 0.10. Small sized institutions show a small positive Pearson score at
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 69
r = 0.263, a regression coefficient of β = 0.535, and an R-squared measurement of r² =0.069.
The regression coefficient is significant at P > 0.000 and indicates a 0.54% increase in
graduation rates when the percentage of athletes at an institution is increased by 1%. The largest
positive correlation is found in medium size institutions, with a medium positive Pearson score
of r = 0.439, a regression coefficient of β = 2.27 and an R-squared measurement of r² = 0.192.
The regression coefficient is significant at P > 0.000 and indicates a 2.27% in graduation rates
when the percentage of athletes at an institution is increased by 1%. Large size institutions also
showed a positive correlation, with a small positive Pearson score of r = 0.221 a regression
coefficient of β = 3.41, and an R-squared measurement of r² = 0.049. The regression coefficient
is significant at P > 0.01 and indicates a 3.41% increase in graduation rates when the percentage
of athletes at an institution is increased by 1%.
Table 8
Correlations and Regression Coefficients for Effect of Percentage of Athletes to the Six-Year
Graduation Rate Categorized by Size According to Carnegie Classifications for NCAA Schools

Size of Institution N r
β
p
r²
Very Small < 1000 0.007 n/a n/a n/a
Small 1,000-2,999 0.263 0.535 0.000 0.069
Medium 3,000-9,999 0.439 2.27 0.000 0.192
Large > 10,000 0.221 3.41 0.003 0.049

Part One Conclusion
This study examined possible positive correlations between the percentage of athletes on
a university campus and the 6-year graduation rate to test the validity of the theme. In order to
ensure that institutions were correlated with schools of similar sizes, they were broken into size
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 70
levels according to the Carnegie size classifications. The data demonstrate a positive correlation
for institutions belonging to the small, medium, and large size Carnegie classifications. For small
and large institutions, there is a small positive correlation and for medium size institutions there
is a medium positive correlation.
Part Two: Qualitative Analysis
In the first part of this study, data were examined to check for correlations between the
percentage of athletes on a school campus and the overall 6-year graduation rates for the
university. As this is an explanatory study design, the second part of this study examined
interview data with university and athletic administrators to explain the correlations found above.
Interview data results are shared according to interview questions and specified for appropriate
themes according to the research questions. Following the discovery of common themes and
ideas for the interview questions, a summary of themes and interpretations is given specifically
addressing each research question. A final interpretation completes the research design;
illustrating how themes and ideas presented in the interview findings support correlational
findings.
Participants
Five university and athletic administrators representing universities and colleges from
NCAA divisions I, II, and III were interviewed. The positions of the administrators included
university president, athletic director/athletics administrator, and conference commissioner. The
schools represented were mainly private with one state university and ranged from 804 to 8,400
undergraduate students. The conferences the schools competed in were the Pacific West
Conference, the Capital Athletic Conference, and the Ivy League.

ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 71
Interview Data
Each interview was recorded on a digital device and then transcribed into a text document
on a personal computer. Actual interviews ranged from 45 to just over 90 minutes in length. A
summary of each interview was assembled and sent to the participants for review to ensure
authenticity. Having each interviewee review the transcript is known as member checking
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Lincoln and Guba (1985) state that member checking is crucial for
establishing credibility in qualitative research to understand what the participant intended to say,
locate any errors and correct misinterpretation, offer additional information, and confirm data.
After responses were returned, they were coded to discover themes and ideas that
reflected responses to the research questions. Responses were open coded and then axial coded
for placement into categories according to the research questions they corresponded with.
Following coding and categorization responses were assembled and examined for common
themes or ideas. These themes are presented in short summary responses for each interview
question in Tables 9 through 14. Each table is unique to a single interview question as noted in
the table description. The tables illustrate themes and the number of respondents who discussed
the theme in the interview question. Results in the table are listed by rank order according to the
number of times they were mentioned by respondents. Each respondent is signified by a letter: A
thru E. Next to each response there is an indicator signifying to which research question(s) the
responses are assigned. Each research question is indicated as follows: research question one as
RQ1, research question two as RQ2, and research question three as RQ3. After each table,
participant statements that were particularly relevant to the research questions are discussed.
Statements were also coded to indicate the research question (RQ1, RQ2, and/or RQ3) that the
statement was attributed to.
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 72
Table 9
Interview Question One Responses and Themes: What Are Some Differences That You Recognize
Between Larger University Athletic Programs And Smaller College Athletic Programs?
Themes Discussed in Responses Research
Question(s)
A B C D E Count
The philosophy of school leadership determines direction
values, and goals of a university athletic program RQ2 x x x x

4
Smaller athletic programs focus on athlete development as a
student and individual, and not on winning or being
spectator friendly RQ2 x x x

3
Big-time athletics is about winning games and
championships as well as gaining media exposure RQ2

x x x 3
Funding models determine the ability of athletic programs to
be competitive in their conferences and nationally RQ2

x x x 3
Smaller Athletic programs focus on recruiting students who
are athletes, not on athletes who are also students
RQ1
RQ2

x x

2

Findings from interview question one. One of the primary goals of this research was to
discover differences in large university athletic programs and small university and college
programs. This question specifically attempted to identify some of those differences. Athletic
program administrators strongly supported (n=4) that the philosophy of school leadership
determines the directions and goals of the program. In clarifying that idea, three of the
respondents noted that small university athletic programs focus on athlete development as
students and as individuals. Respondents (n=3) also illustrated that big-time athletics is about
winning games and championships and gaining television or other media exposure. Respondent
C said that small universities, “still want to win, but the real desire is a balance of competiveness,
academics, and civic engagement.” Continuing this idea, Respondent C stated, “Division II is the
truest form of college athletics” because the focus is not on winning, but on the development of
the individual. Additionally, two of the respondents noted that small athletic programs focus on
recruiting students who are athletes, as opposed to athletes who are students. Respondent D
extended this idea, observing that “athletics can enhance academics, and that needs to be taken
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 73
into account when executives try to determine priorities.” This statement supports RQ3 and helps
explain the correlation noted in the first part of this study that states that having athletes on
campus can enhance academic performance. For smaller athletic programs, the focus is on
academics first. Respondent B summed up this key difference between athletes in large and
small university programs, sharing that “Most small school athletes are academicians who play a
sport- not athletes who are academicians.”
Another idea respondents noted (n=2) was that funding models play a large role in the
ability of smaller university athletic programs to be successful. For interview question one, the
primary differences identified are that, first, the philosophy of university leadership determines
the direction, values, and goals of the athletics program. Second, athlete development is more
important than competitiveness. Third, winning is not a primary program goal. Fourth, funding
largely determines how competitive a program can be. Finally, programs recruit successful
students who can also be successful in athletics.
Table 10
Interview Question Two Responses and Themes: What Is Your Highest Priority, Or The Most
Important Value Measurement, For A University or College Athletic Program?
Themes Discussed in Responses Research
Question(s) A B C D E Count
There should be multiple benefits for athletes on campus
beyond athletics (academic support, leadership,
community service) RQ1

x

x x 3
Athletes should be performing well as students and be
setting high standards in the classroom RQ1

x x

2
There needs to be a strong focus on leadership
development within an athletic program by coaches and
university leadership RQ1 x x

2
The athletics program should help athletes balance
athletics, academics, and community service
RQ1
RQ2

x x

2

ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 74
Findings from interview question two. Identifying the highest priorities that university
and athletic administrators focus on was a key element of this study. Most (n=3) respondents
agreed that there should be multiple benefits for the athletes on their campus. Respondent B
commented that “athletes represent the university” and, therefore, “are a priority.” The benefits
they named included academic support, leadership, and community service opportunities.
Respondents (n=2) noted that academic performance by athletes is a priority. Respondent C
summarized the belief that schools should “recruit good students who are good athletes; that they
are “excellent students who happen to be excellent athletes.” This response is also present in the
first interview question, but was specifically highlighted by Respondent C as a program priority.
Respondent C concluded by remarking that “athletes who graduate” are a measurement of
program success.
Leadership development focused on the athletes is mentioned by two of the respondents
supported by Respondent A’s emphasis that the “most important thing to spend money on is
leadership development in athletes” and that “there is a need for good coaching to lead and
mentor the program.” Two respondents stated that balance is an important priority in athletics.
Respondent D stated that there “needs to be balance in a student-athlete’s life between athletic
endeavors, academic endeavors, and what they do in the community, socially.” Similarly,
respondent E shared that small college athletics is “…more than just wins and losses, but how
they [athletes] develop as young men and young women not only academically but also with
their life skills.” In discussing the administrator’s individual university priorities, and not those
of all small universities, respondent E was the only who mentioned that “be[ing] competitive” is
a priority. In summary, when outlining priorities for university athletic programs, respondents
illustrated a need for programs to provide multiple benefits including leadership development,
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 75
academic development, and community service. Additionally, athletes should be maintaining
high standards in the classroom as they balance personal development and community service
with their academic studies.
Table 11
Interview Question Three Responses and Themes: What Are Some Additional Benefits That
Universities Can Realize From Hosting Athletics? How Do You Know These Benefits Exist?
Themes Discussed in Responses Research
Question(s) A B C D E Count
Supporting athletics is an essential component of
university student life activities and culture of the school RQ3

x x x

3
Athletes represent the school outside of the campus
community at other universities and areas RQ1 x x

2
Athletes become campus leaders in the classroom and
for student life activities
RQ1
RQ3 x

x

2
Help connect the community and campus as a means of
entertainment and community service RQ3 x

x

2
Develop and improve school pride
RQ3

x x

2

Findings from interview question three. In order to ensure that respondents had an
opportunity to share any additional benefits they see in universities hosting athletics, this
question asked them to identify any additional benefits they recognize. Three respondents noted
that athletics is an essential part of student life and culture at a university. According to
respondent C, athletics “connects departments on campus—it creates common support.”
Respondents discussed the importance of students feeling that become part of the campus and
develop a sense of belonging. Two of the respondents shared the idea that athletes represent the
image of the university to non-students off of campus. Respondent B noted this in sharing “teams
are part of the brand” of the university. Respondents (n=2) also stated that athletes become
campus leaders. Respondent A shared that athletics benefits a university because it “attracts
leaders that become campus leaders, they learn it and practice it.”
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 76
Additionally, athletics connects the local campus community with the campus.
Respondent C shared that the community connection is vital, that athletics practices “outreach
with the community. At this university we have had some fans who have come out to support the
program for over 40 years. We are part of the community.” Respondent C continued this, though,
stating that there are “financial benefits to the university and community.” Finally, two
respondents indicated that developing and improving school pride is an additional benefit of
college athletic programs. The additional benefits that athletics brings to a campus are focused
on enhancing student life, representing the university to non-students, bringing leaders to
campus, connecting with the local community, and improving school pride.
Table 12
Interview Question Four Responses and Themes: How Do Athletes Affect Recruiting And
Admissions In The Programs You Work With?
Themes Discussed in Responses Research
Question(s) A B C D E Count
Teams can reinforce the values of the university to non-
students who are considering applying to the university
RQ1
RQ3

x x x

3
There is a historical correlation between athletic success
and improved admission applications at universities RQ3 x

x

x 3
Enrollment driver for universities that are not able to
reach enrollment caps or who are trying to increase
enrollment
RQ1
RQ3 x

x

2

Findings from interview question four. Respondents identified three primary ways that
athletics affects university recruiting and admissions. The first way that athletic administrators
(n=3) identified athletics as having an effect on recruiting and admissions is through
reinforcement of the values of the university when athletics represents the university to non-
students. Respondent D stated that, because of athletic programs, “there is a heightened sense of
awareness that drive some people to [the] school, that is where they want to end up.” Respondent
C supported this idea, sharing that “the best salespeople for our school are our current students.”
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 77
This idea is closely related to the second theme stated above, shared by three of the respondents,
that there is a history of athletic success leading to improved admissions applications.
Respondents also shared that they do not know the exact figures, but are aware of studies that
support this idea. Respondent A noted that “media exposure draws visits to a university website”
and that “athletics brings students to the university rather than to online education.” This positive
effect on recruiting is helpful for bringing in local students, as respondent C shared, specifying
that there is “improved recruiting for local students” when athletic programs are winning. In
addition to bringing in more local students, there is the benefit of additional legislative support.
Respondent C stated that “When athletic programs are successful the campus gets more funding
and better facilities.” Improved facilities help bring in more students.
The final benefit addressed by two of the respondents was that smaller colleges use
athletics to boost university enrollment. Respondent D suggested that “college athletics can be
used as an enrollment driver, and I think even more so at smaller colleges,” meaning that
colleges use athletes to add to their enrollment numbers. Respondent A supported this idea,
noting that “coaches understand the whole mission of the university. They help recruit for
academics and recruit for the whole school.” When a school’s overall enrollment is down,
athletic recruiting can be a valuable tool for bringing in more students. Interview question three
outlines recruiting and admissions benefits enjoyed by universities when they host athletic
programs, especially as representatives of the university and as a way to increase application
interest in the university. It should be noted that respondent E offered a counter-point that in
stating, “For schools that have highly competitive admissions, athletics doesn’t play a key role in
recruiting.” In other words, not every university will need to utilize athletics to increase student
recruitment interest.
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 78
Table 13
Interview Question Five Responses and Themes: What Role Does Athletics Play In Student Life?
Themes Discussed in Responses Research
Question(s) A B C D E Count
Athletics can be an essential part of the experience
of being a university student
RQ1
RQ3 x

x x x 4
Athletics creates a sense of unity for students who
support a team or program RQ3 x

x x 3
Promote engagement and involvement both on
campus and in the community
RQ1
RQ3 x

x x

3

Findings from interview question five. According to research outlined in Chapter Two,
strong student life programs often contribute positively to student success rates on campus. This
interview question focused on identifying the role of athletics in student life. A large majority of
respondents (n=4) stated that athletics can be an essential part of the experience of being a
student. Respondent C affirmed that “if students enjoy the experience and become part of
supporting athletics, they become more engaged with the school” and that “with good student
life, we get better student retention.” Respondent E said that athletics “is part of the overall
educational experience—come to games and participate with your university and [get] behind
your respective teams.”
Three of the respondents shared that athletics increases the sense of campus unity as
students get behind a team, a theme also discovered in interview question three. Respondent A
acknowledged that athletics “creates a sense of unity on campus like nothing else.” Respondents
(n=3) also re-emphasized that athletics promotes engagement and involvement on campus and in
the community. Respondent C discussed “partnerships [that] promote other campus student life
activities,” noting that it is not uncommon for athletics to promote non-athletic activities, such as
dances or service projects, at athletic events. Respondent D discussed the impact of athletic
programs on the campus community sharing that “it is very important to forge a marriage or
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 79
partnership between athletics and the community—that’s always a good thing.” In summary,
athletics can be an important part of the student life experience, it creates unity on campus and
can increase engagement and community involvement.
Table 14
Interview Question Six Responses and Themes: Are There Any Academic Benefits To The
University In Hosting Athletic Programs?
Themes Discussed in Responses Research
Question(s) A B C D E Count
Athletes are often the top academic performers on
campus in small universities and colleges
RQ2
RQ3 x x x 3
Administration focuses on athletes having positive
academic experiences and ensuring they have
support and resources to be successful RQ1 x x

2
Athletes have higher retention and graduation
rates than non-students because of eligibility
guidelines and scholarship time limits RQ3 x

x

2

Findings from interview question six. This interview question was specifically targeted
toward addressing confirmation of the positive correlation between athletics and increased
academic performance for the university as a whole. Respondents primarily discussed the high
academic performance of athletes at smaller universities and the reasons for increased academic
performance. Three respondents shared that athletes at small universities are often some of the
top academic performers at their universities. Respondent E noted that athletes do very well
academically, especially when they are in season, “we have a pretty good sense that our student-
athletes, when they are in season, have better grades, because they are more focused and more
structured in terms of their practice schedules but also their academic requirements.” Two of the
administrators emphasized that there is a focus on campus to ensure that athletes have a positive
academic experience and that they have the resources they need to be successful. Two of the
respondents also declared that athletes have higher retention and graduation rates than non-
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 80
athletes. Respondent C observed that “data will show that student-athletes have higher retention
and graduation rates” often because they are monitored more closely and have limited funded
scholarship time to take advantage of. Respondent E issued a statement regarding improved
overall academic scores at a university, adding that “athletics creatives a positive mood on
campus that encourages a positive attitude.” In conclusion, there is a strong belief that athletes
perform better than non-athletes on small university campuses and that this is due to a focus by
university and athletic leaders to ensure that athletes are successful in the classroom. Finally,
because athletes have a more monitored and structured academic load, they are more likely to
stay enrolled and stay on track for graduation.
Research Question Data
Utilizing the themes outlined in the Tables 9 through 14 and the summaries that followed,
the following section compiles the data by the research questions. Tables 15 through 17 contain
interview responses, themes, and ideas sorted into the relevant research questions assigned in the
interview data section above. After each theme, the number of respondents who mentioned that
theme is stated. The interview question that generated the response is also listed.
Research question one data compilation. The first research question asked, “What are
the primary values that university administrators at smaller institutions identify for collegiate
athletic programs?” All six interview questions created responses to this question. Table 15
indicates that a majority of respondents shared the belief that athletic programs are a part of
being a student (n=4), that athletic programs should focus on students who are athletes, and not
athletes who are students (n=4), and that team members reinforce the values of the university to
non-students (n=4). One of the respondents (C) stated that programs should focus on “excellent
students who happen to be excellent athletes,” outlining a focus on recruiting individuals who
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 81
can perform in the classroom. Respondent C added that “athletes who graduate” are a
measurement of success. Respondent B communicated the belief that “athletes represent the
university” and, therefore, “are a priority.”
The theme of athletes being a priority because of their academics and visibility is
supported by respondents who shared that one of the values of an athletic program is individual
athlete development. They noted (n=3) that there should be multiple benefits for athletes who
participate in athletic programs. One of those primary benefits mentioned by respondents (n=3)
was leadership development for athletes. Respondent A revealed that athletics “attracts leaders
that become campus leaders, they learn it and practice it,” and that “[the] most important thing to
spend money on is leadership development in athletes.” Another (E) furthered this thought,
stating that it is “more than just wins and losses, but how they develop as young men and young
women not only academically but also with their life skills.”
Personal development and life skills highlight another key point made by several
respondents (n=3)—that there needs to be a balance between athletics, academics, and the
development of the student. Respondent D expressed the conviction that there, “needs to be
balance in a student-athlete’s life between athletic endeavors, academic endeavors, and what they
do in the community, socially.” Only one respondent (E) discussed the importance of
competitiveness as a value, but also noted that “Athletes should be having fun.” The institutions
represented place a strong value on balance and development of the student as a person.
Additionally, athletics can promote community engagement (n=3), something
respondents felt provides an academic benefit to the campus. Respondent D noted that, “it is very
important to forge a marriage or partnership between athletics and the community—that’s always
a good thing.” Respondent C pointed out “financial benefits to the university and community.”
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 82
Respondent D illustrated that this relationship can be long-term, stating that, “[athletics]
outreaches with community. At this university, we have had some fans who have come out to
support the program for over 40 years. We are part of the community.” Small college athletic
programs are an important part of the community they are located in.
Summary. Administrators identified specific values in the athletic programs hosted by
their institutions. Athletics are a part of the student experience and athletes should reinforce the
values of the university to non-students. Recruitment efforts focus on academically skilled
students who can participate in athletic programs. Additionally, programs should have multiple
benefits for athletes and one of those benefits should be leadership development. Finally,
programs should strive to help athletes balance athletics, academics, and student development.
Table 15
What Are The Primary Values That University Administrators At Smaller Institutions Identify
For Collegiate Athletic Programs?
Note. *= theme is repeated in other research question areas.

Research question two data compilation. The second research question asked “What
differences do university administrators recognize between large university athletic programs
Response to RQ1 Number of
respondents
Interview
question
Athletics can be an essential part of the experience of being a university student 4 5
Athletes represent the school outside of the campus community at other universities
and areas and reinforce the values of the university to non-students who are
considering applying to the university *
4 3,4
Smaller Athletic programs focus on recruiting students who are athletes, not on
athletes who are also students; athletes should have positive academic experiences,
ensuring they have support and resources to be successful *
4 1,2,6
There should be multiple benefits for athletes on campus beyond athletics (academic
support, leadership, community service)
3 2
There needs to be a strong focus on leadership development within an athletic
program by coaches and university leadership and athletes become campus leaders
in the classroom and for student life activities *
3 2
The athletics program should help athletes balance athletics, academics, and
community service *
3 2
Promote engagement and involvement both on campus and in the community 3 5
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 83
and smaller university programs?” As shown in Table 16, all respondents provided responses to
research question two. When specifically asked to identify the differences in large and small
college athletic programs, most (n=4) respondents noted that the philosophy of school leadership
is what determined direction and value in the program, indicating more flexibility in smaller
college programs than in large ones. Another key difference between small and large colleges
that was also discussed in research question one, pointed out by most respondents (n=4), was in
the academic ability of student-athletes in that the best and brightest on campus are athletes.
Respondent B remarked that “most small school athletes are academicians who play a sport, not
athletes who are academicians.”
Also, as mentioned in answers to research question one, balance in athletics, academics,
and personal development was one of the defining differences (n=3). With regards to this
difference, respondent C emphasized that “Division II is the truest form of college athletics,”
because of the emphasis on balance. Athletes are students and members of the community, they
are part of the campus. Respondent D shared that there “needs to be balance in a student-
athlete’s life between athletic endeavors, academic endeavors, and what they do in the
community, socially.” Respondent C followed up by saying that small college athletic programs,
“still want to win, but the real desire is a balance of competiveness, academics, and civic
engagement.”
With regards to athletic program competitiveness, three respondents stated that big-time
athletics is about winning and that funding models largely determine the competitiveness of an
institutions athletic programs (n=3). This theme is also supported in research question one as
discussed previously. Two respondents noted that wining is not as important because the focus is
on athletes and not on winning—the sports are less spectator friendly.
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 84
Summary. The major differences respondents identified between large and small
university athletic programs was how school leadership largely determined the direction and
value of the programs and that the very best students on campus are athletes. A majority also
noted that big-time athletics’ focus is on winning and that funding models determine levels of
competitiveness. The non-emphasis on winning also means that small college athletic programs
are less spectator-friendly. The balance of athletics, academics and personal development
discussed as a priority in research question one is also noted as a major difference between large
and small college athletic programs.
Table 16
What Differences Do University Administrators Recognize Between Large University Athletic
Programs And Smaller University Programs?
Response to RQ2 Number of
respondents
Interview
question
The philosophy of school leadership determines direction values, and goals of a
university athletic program
4 1
Athletes are often the top academic performers on campus in small universities and
colleges
4 3,6
Big-time athletics is about winning games and championships as well as gaining
media exposure
3 1
Funding models determine the ability of athletic programs to be competitive in their
conferences and nationally
3 1
The athletics program should help athletes balance athletics, academics, and
community service *
3 2
Smaller athletic programs focus on athlete development as a student and individual,
and not on winning or being spectator friendly
2 1
Note. *= theme is repeated in other research question areas.
Research question three data compilation. The third research question asked, “Is there
an academic benefit for all students, not just athletes, in attending a college where athletic
programs are present?” As illustrated in Table 17, responses to interview questions that focus on
research question three showed the strongest response to a single theme: all five respondents
indicated that athletics is part of being a student. While this theme was also mentioned as an
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 85
athletic program value by some of the respondents, as mentioned in the research question one
summary, there is universal agreement (n=5) that athletics provide an academic value, as it is
part of being a student. Respondent E stated, “athletics creates a positive mood on campus that
encourages a positive attitude” and that, “[athletics] is part of the overall educational
experience—come to games and participate with your university and [get] behind your
respective teams.” According to respondent C, the positive association with a sense of
engagement is important for student success, “if students enjoy the experience and become part
of supporting athletics, they become more engaged with the school.” Respondent D encourages
key decision makers to consider the value that athletics has on the academic environment of the
university, affirming that, “athletics can enhance academics, and that needs to be taken into
account when executives try to determine priorities.” In addition to responding to the research
question, these responses also drive the hypothesis of this study that there is a positive effect on
the academic performance of undergraduate students when higher education institutions host
athletic programs and that a higher percentage of athletes will correlate with improved 6-year
graduation rates.
Administrators pointed out additional benefits that athletic programming brings to
academic performance. Four respondents discussed how athletic programs bring improved
student admissions and recruiting, especially identifying the correlation between athletic success
and improved admissions (n=4). Respondent B noted that “teams are part of the brand” of the
university. According to respondent D, “there is a heightened sense of awareness that drive some
people to that school—that is where they want to end up.” Respondent A discussed the way
athletics can offer prospective students their initial exposure to the university and combat loss of
enrollment to online programming, declaring that, “media exposure draws visits to a university
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 86
website” and that “athletics brings students to the university rather than online education.”
Respondent C remarked that, “the best salespeople for our school are our current students” and
that athletic success is especially useful for “improved recruiting for local students.” An
additional related benefit mentioned by respondent C is that, “when athletic programs are
successful the campus gets more funding and better facilities,” tools that college recruiters use to
draw more students to campus. Respondent E offered a contrary opinion, remarking that, “for
schools that have highly competitive admissions, athletics doesn’t play a key role in recruiting.”
This means that academically high performing institutions with exceptionally competitive
admissions processes will not necessarily benefit from the increased number of applicants. For
schools in need of admissions and recruiting boosts to improve academic performance, athletic
programs can enhance those efforts.
Three respondents indicated that a stronger sense of unity created by athletics contributes
to improved academic performance (n=3). Respondent C illustrated this point, stating that
athletics, “creates a sense of unity on campus like nothing else,” and “connect[s] departments on
campus—it creates common support” allowing faculty from different departments to have
common purpose. Respondent C also pointed out that, at smaller institutions, “partnerships
promote other campus student life activities.” Partnerships between athletics and different
campus organizations, and the unity that athletic programs can create enhance the overall
performance of students on campus. As mentioned by respondent C, “with good student life we
get better student retention.”
As mentioned in previous research question discussions, the high academic performance
of athletes is a unique value of small college athletic programs (n=3). When athletes are high
academic performers, they lift grade averages and set a higher academic standard. Respondent E
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 87
described the improved academic performances, saying, “we have a pretty good sense that our
student-athletes, when they are in season, have better grades, because they are more focused and
more structured in terms of their practice schedules but also their academic requirements.”
Respondent C expressed that, “data will show that student-athletes have higher retention and
graduation rates.” As athletes lead in the classroom, their ability to positively influence the
overall academics at the school is increased. This effect is also magnified when schools face
decreasing enrollments. One of the goals of many athletic programs is to act as an enrollment
driver for institutions not reaching enrollment caps (n=2). In other words, when colleges seek
ways to bring more students to campus, they often look to athletic programs. Respondent D
affirmed this, revealing that “college athletics can be used as an enrollment driver, and I think
even more so at smaller colleges.” Respondent A furthered the explanation, noting that coaches
are often very effective recruiters for new students expressing that, “coaches understand the
whole mission of the university. They help recruit for academics and recruit for the whole
school.”
Summary. Athletic programs are an essential part of being a student and creating a
feeling of campus community contributes to student academic success. Visible athletic teams,
especially successful ones, encourage more students to apply and increase admission numbers,
raising the academic levels of the student body. A sense of unity is created by athletics on a
college campus, encouraging campus cooperation and unification. Respondents believed the
academic ability of student-athletes is often higher than the average student and can lift the
academic level of all students. Finally, when enrollment caps are not being met, athletic
recruiting becomes a valuable tool for bringing more students to campus.
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 88
Table 17
Is There an Academic Benefit for All Students, Not Just Athletes, In Attending a College Where
Athletic Programs Are Present?
Response Number of
respondents
Interview
question
Supporting athletics is an essential component of university student life activities
and culture of the school; athletics can be an essential part of the experience of being
a university student *
5 3,5
There is a historical correlation between athletic success and improved admission
applications at universities
4 4
Athletics creates a sense of unity for students who support a team or program and
promotes engagement and involvement both on campus and in the community
3 5
Athletes are often the top academic performers on campus in small universities and
colleges *
3 6
Enrollment driver for universities that are not able to reach enrollment caps or who
are trying to increase enrollment
2 4
Note. *= theme is repeated in other research question areas.
Part One Qualitative Analysis Summary
The data from the qualitative analysis illustrate responses to each of the research
questions. In response to research question one, several primary values, including strong student-
athlete experiences, reinforcement of university values to non-students, a focus on academic
performance by athletes, and leadership development for athletes were identified. Additionally, a
focus on the overall development of the athlete as a student and person, in addition to athletic
performance, is prioritized. Research question two responses outlined differences in small and
large college athletic systems with the primary differences identified being that university
leadership determines athletic program focus and that the very best students on campus are often
the athletes. Often, because of funding limitations, there is less of a focus on winning, which
creates a less desirable spectator environment. Again, an emphasis on balance in the life of the
student-athlete is of exceptional importance. Outlining these differences, one respondent stated,
small college athletics “are the truest form of university athletics.”
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 89
Responses to research question three also prompt an initial explanation of the
correlational analysis in part one of this chapter. Respondents noted that there are several
academic benefits for the entire student body when athletic programs are present. Athletics are a
primary component of student life and contribute toward the sense of belonging and unity that
students feel. Athletes are often high performing students and raise academic standards.
Additionally, institutions often increase athletic programs in order to bring more students to
campus. As coaches bring academically high preforming students to campus, there is an
academic benefit to the student body as a whole.
Part Two Conclusion
The summary above and statements by respondents indicate that the presence of athletic
programs can increase an institution’s overall academic performance. As part of an explanatory
sequential design (Creswell, 2013), a qualitative study consisting of interviews with small
university athletics directors and campus leadership was designed to explain results from the first
part of this study—a correlational examination of the percentage of athletes on campus with the
6-year graduation rate. The results of the correlation show small and medium correlations exist
with different size population classifications of schools. Interview data can be used to interpret
and explain the correlation. Part three of chapter four presents interpretations and explanations.
Part Three: Interpretation
As discussed in Chapter Two, one of the ways that universities test academic
achievement is through an examination of 6-year graduation rates. Six-year graduation rates
provide a common measurement tool to test for retention and academic successes of students at a
university (LaForge & Hodge, 2011). This study examined positive correlations between the
percentage of athletes on a university campus and the 6-year graduation rate. In order to ensure
that institutions were correlated with schools of similar sizes, they were broken into size levels
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 90
according to the Carnegie size classifications. The data demonstrate a positive correlation for
institutions belonging to the small, medium, and large size Carnegie classifications. For small
and large institutions, there is a small positive correlation and, for medium institutions, there is a
medium positive correlation (Table 8). These correlations suggest that the higher the percentage
of athletes on a university campus, the better the 6-year graduation rate of that university will be.
As a result of this finding, interviews with university leaders and athletic directors were
analyzed seeking an explanation of the correlational findings. The analysis is separated
according to the research questions presented in Chapter Three.
Part Three: Research Question One Discussion
Research question one asked, “What are the primary values that university administrators
at smaller institutions have identified for collegiate athletic programs?” The values they
identified were that athletics are a valuable part of student life and the college experience, that
teams represent university values to non-students, that student-athletes focus on academic
achievement, and that athletic programs strive to help student-athletes learn to balance academic
performance, personal development, and community service.
One of the themes with the strongest level of support (n=4) as a primary value for
athletics, is that athletics is part of being a student. Respondents felt that athletic programs are an
essential part of the collegiate experience, not just for the athlete but for students at the
institution as well. Away from campus, athletic programs have another important role.
Respondents noted (n=4) that teams reinforce the values of the university to non-students.
Respondent B stated that “Athletes represent the university” and, therefore, “are a priority.” As
potential representatives of the university, university athletic programs are expected to represent
and reinforce the values of the university.
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 91
Another area of high agreement in research question one is the need to recruit athletes
who are students first. Academic achievement is a high priority for respondents (n=4). One of the
primary values for small schools is in recruiting athletes who will do well in the classroom.
Respondent C shared that the institutions try to recruit, “excellent students who happen to be
excellent athletes.” Respondents strongly emphasized that academic performance is an
expectation for athletes. Several respondents (n=3) stated that there should be an effort made to
help athletes find balance in their athletics, academics, and personal development. This theme is
also mentioned as one of the key differences between large and small university athletic
programs in research question two. To help athletes achieve this balance, respondents stated that
they expect that athletic programs work to ensure that athletes receive multiple benefits from
participation (n=3) and that leadership development of athletes is a goal of athletic programs
(n=3). Respondent D noted that there “needs to be balance in a student-athlete’s life between
athletic endeavors, academic endeavors, and what they do in the community, socially.” An
expectation in developing balance is the connection that athletic programs make with the
community that supports the university. Community engagement and involvement was another
well supported theme in interviewing athletic administrators (n=3).
In summary, athletics are a valuable part of small university campuses as they are an
essential part of the student experience. Athletic programs are expected to reflect the values of
the university they represent. Additionally, student-athletes should focus first on academics and
work to balance academics, athletic performance, and personal development. The focus on
academic achievement and personal development for student-athletes would suggest that athletes
have the resources to increase their own academic performance. Increased academic
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 92
performances by student-athletes supports the finding that the presence of athletes may increase
the overall academic performance of a university.
Part Three: Research Question Two Discussion
Research question two attempted to answer the question, “What differences do university
administrators recognize between large university athletic programs and smaller university
programs?” The first difference highlighted in this study is that administrators felt that the
philosophy of school leadership determines the program direction and values (n=4) and that, in
opposition to big-time athletic programs, winning is not valued as highly (n=3). Administrators
noted that university leadership determine program direction more in smaller universities. As
mentioned by respondents (n=3), small university athletic programs often do not have an
adequate amount of funding to pursue winning as a program priority. Some respondents (n=2)
mentioned that smaller university athletic programs are not as spectator friendly, as the focus is
on the program experience, not on winning.
The final difference discussed by nearly all respondents (n=4) is that the best and
brightest students on campus are athletes. In big-time athletic programs, when academic ability
of athletes is discussed it is often in a negative perspective. Williams et al. (2008) and Fried
(2007) observed that athletes in large university athletic programs can be among the lowest
performing on campus. However, respondents in this study indicated that athletes are often
academic leaders on campus. Respondent B shared the belief that “Most small school athletes are
academicians who play a sport—not athletes who are academicians.” Respondent E shared that,
in his institution, data show that athletes in season get better grades than when they are out of
season and better than the university average as a whole. Respondents suggest that athletes in
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 93
small university athletic programs out perform their non-athlete colleagues and raise the
academic standard.
According to respondents, the values and goals of small university athletic programs are
heavily determined by university leadership and are less focused on winning than their big-time
athletics counterparts. Respondents note that the lessened emphasis on winning may be due, in
large part, to a lack of funding. Because there is a lower emphasis on winning, the programs can
have different goals and values and often those values are centered on athlete development and
academic performance. Respondents noted that athletes often outperform the general student
body academically. This finding is in agreement with the finding from research question one: the
presence of athletes may increase the overall academic performance of a university, and supports
the conclusions from the correlational study.
Part Three: Research Question Three Discussion
Research question three asked, “Is there an academic benefit for all students, not just
athletes, in attending a college where athletic programs are offered?” Initial research for this
study indicated that, as responses to research question two suggest, there are some distinct
differences in the benefits that large university athletic programs pursue and the desired benefits
for small university athletic programs. The main purpose of this study was to determine some of
the primary values smaller universities can expect to achieve when hosting athletic programs.
These values may be shared by large universities; however, the purpose was to specify which
values are the priority for small university athletic programs.
Universally, respondents stated that athletics are an essential part of student life (n=5).
Respondent E discussed the positive mood that athletic programs create on a campus.
Respondent C shared the feeling that, “if students enjoy the experience and become part of
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 94
supporting athletics, they become more engaged with the school.” These interactions help
students increase their sense of belonging, and they more readily identify themselves as a student
in a positive manner. Clopton (2007) stated that, when students support an athletic program, they
are more likely to become integrated into the student culture. Students who positively identify
with their college have higher perceptions of self-worth and academic abilities which promotes
academic achievement (Sung et al., 2015). By helping non-athlete students feel more closely
connected to a university’s culture and community, athletic programs can significantly benefit
students’ academic performance by increasing their perception of ability. Respondent D affirmed
that, “athletics can enhance academics, and that needs to be taken into account when executives
try to determine priorities.”
One of the most often discussed values of university athletic programs for big-time
athletics programs is the increased admissions and recruiting that schools enjoy. Most
respondents in this analysis stated that increasing admissions numbers is another way that
athletics can enhance the academic performance of a university (n=4). Respondent B shared that
teams are part of the brand of the university. Respondent D offered a supporting opinion, sharing
that, “there is a heightened sense of awareness that drive some people to that school—that is
where they want to end up.” Respondent A noted that any media exposure will draw students to a
campus website, and that athletics can be a driver for getting students to physically attend a
campus as opposed to taking classes online. There is value to the admissions process by having
athletics programs. Athletics increases exposure and makes the campus more visible to more
potential students. However, one counter-point was offered by respondent E, offering that, “for
schools that have highly competitive admissions, athletics doesn’t play a key role in recruiting.”
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 95
Respondents shared that athletics also bring more students to campus to fill enrollment
needs (n=2). For larger universities, where athletics can make up less than one to three percent of
the total university enrollment, the effect of athletics on enrollment is negligible. However, for
smaller colleges in NCAA division I and II, the percentages can range from 10% to 25% of
campus (Fried, 2007). For colleges seeking ways to fill empty seats, athletics can provide a
valuable resource. One respondent shared that some coaches are asked to bring in two athletes
for each scholarship they give away. Respondent A stated that coaches know what kind of
students will best fit in the campus environment and are valuable campus recruiters. According
to some respondents, small university athletic programs produce the best students on campus
(n=3). As discussed above, respondents strongly support the idea that student-athletes are
students first and athletes second. Respondent C expressed that “data will show that student-
athletes have higher retention and graduation rates,” a view that is supported in previous research
by Van Rheenen (2012).
Research question three asked, “Is there an academic benefit for all students, not just
athletes, in attending a college where athletic programs are offered?” Data from interviews
indicate that there are multiple academic benefits for the student body as a whole when athletic
programs are present on a university campus. As an essential part of student life, athletic
programs help students feel connected to campus, providing them with an increased sense of
belonging and decreasing the chance that they discontinue from school. The presence of athletics
programs provides increased admissions requests and enrollment numbers. Increases in
admissions applications create higher admissions standards and raise incoming students’
academic performance measurements. When universities cannot meet enrollment caps, athletics
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 96
can be utilized to increase enrollment numbers. In a variety of ways, athletic programs can
increase the academic performance of the student body.
Part Three- Summary of Analysis and Interpretation of Research Questions
Research question one identifies the primary values that university administrators at
smaller institutions identify for college athletic programs. Those values indicate that athletics are
an essential part of the university experience and campus life, that student-athletes are expected
to represent the university, and that the university is focused on the overall development of the
athlete as an individual and as a student, not just as an athlete.
Research question two identifies differences that university administrators recognize
between large university athletic programs and smaller university programs. Values and goals in
small university athletic programs are heavily determined by university leadership and are less
focused on winning. The lowered emphasis on winning means that values are often centered on
athlete development and academic performance resulting in athletes often outperforming the
general student body academically.
Research question three recognizes benefits for all students, not just athletes, in attending
a college where athletic programs are offered. Students benefit when athletics becomes part of
student life and they are able to feel a strong connection to the university and university
community. The university benefits when admissions applications increase and selectivity
increases academic scores of incoming classes. Smaller universities also benefit when they are
not able to reach enrollment goals and can use athletic programs to help them fill seats.
The purpose of the qualitative analysis in this research design was to explain results from
the correlational study through the interpretation of the interview data. The correlational study
outlined in Chapter Four indicates a positive correlation between the percentage of athletes on a
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 97
university campus and the 6-year graduation rate for small, medium, and large schools (Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2010). Interview analysis suggests that this can be
explained through a number of factors. Athletics are an important part of student life. Smaller
universities place a priority on ensuring that athletic programs are an essential part of student
life. When athletics are a part of student life, they can enhance the sense of belonging that non-
athletes feel as part of the university. This sense of belonging can increase student performance.
Additionally, there is less emphasis on winning for smaller universities. Athletic program
administrators often focus on the overall development of the athlete as a student and as a leader.
Development of the athlete as a student encourages increased levels of performance. Athletic
programs at smaller universities also focus on recruiting students who are athletes rather than
athletes who are students. This places a higher emphasis on academics. Respondents in the
interviews stated that athletes in small colleges are often high performing students and outscore
the student body in general. When athletes are outperforming the student body academically they
raise the standards of the university.
Another way that standards are raised is through student recruitment and admissions. The
presence of athletics has a positive influence on admissions applications, especially when teams
are more successful. Increased applications raise incoming classes’ academic standards and have
a positive effect on academic scores. One respondent did note, however, that this effect was not
noticeable when the university already had high selectivity for admissions. Finally, when a
university cannot reach its enrollment caps athletic recruitment can help fill empty seats by
placing more athletes on campus.
For small universities and colleges, the presence of athletics can enhance the academic
performance of the institution through promoting student life, the academic performance of
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 98
athletes, and increased interest in the university by prospective students. This supports the
correlation found between the percentage of athletes on campus and the 6-year graduation rate.
Chapter Four Conclusion
The correlational study outlined in Chapter Four indicates a positive correlation between
the percentage of athletes on a university campus and the 6-year graduation rate for small,
medium, and large schools. An interpretation of the qualitative data analysis of interviews of
athletics and university administrators indicates that there is a strong focus on athletics as a
function of student life, athlete academic performance and the overall development of the athlete
as a student. In an explanatory sequential design the study attempts to explain the quantitative
findings by examining qualitative data. In this study, the positive correlation of increased
graduation rates when the percent of athletes on campus increases can be explained by the
overall academic performance of athletes and the positive effect of athletics on campus life.

ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 99
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
This chapter discusses findings from the research, addressing each research question, to
determine if the hypothesis, that there is a positive effect on the academic performance of
undergraduate students when higher education institutions host athletic programs, is correct. As
an explanatory design (Creswell, 2013) was utilized for this study, there was an examination of
the quantitative data results and then an analysis of qualitative data to attempt to explain the
quantitative results.
Focusing on the idea that athletic programs can enhance academics on campus this study
looked for positive correlations between the total percentage of athletes on campus and the 6-
year graduation rates for those institutions. Utilizing data from the NCAA and IPEDS, and then
separating the institutions by undergraduate population sizing according to Carnegie size
classifications, this study found that positive correlations between the percentage of athletes on
campus and the 6-year graduation rates are present at all but very small schools (student
populations of less than 1000). For small schools (1,000 to 2,999 students) the regression
coefficient was .535, indicating a .5% increase in 6-year graduation rates for every one percent
increase in athletes. For medium schools (3,000 to 9,999 students) the regression coefficient was
2.27, indicating a 2.27% increase in 6-year graduation rates for every one percent increase in
athletes. For large schools (more than 9,999 students) the regression coefficient was .535,
indicating a .5% increase in 6-year graduation rates for every one percent increase in athletes. An
increased percentage of athletes on campus had a positive correlation with increased 6-year
graduation rates, except for institutions with fewer than 1,000 students.
The next step in the research design was to see if an analysis of interview data could
explain the correlations found in the quantitative research. The data indicated that administrators
for small university athletic programs have common values and beliefs regarding the benefits of
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 100
athletic programs on their respective campuses. Responses to research question one strongly
supported the common themes that athletic programs are part of student life and the focus is on
academics over athletics. Additionally, the idea that student-athletes at smaller university athletic
programs should have balance in their lives—in athletics, academics, and personal
development—was shared throughout the results.
Research question two responses outlined the differences between small and large
university athletic programs. The shared beliefs were centered on a wider variety of freedom to
determine program direction and that athletes are often the best and brightest students on
campus. There was a lower level of importance placed on winning, especially as funding levels
do not often provide the resources needed to be highly competitive. As with the first research
question responses, there was a greater effort to ensure balance in the athlete’s life.
The final research question, question three, summarizes the academic benefits the
institution can receive, as a whole, when attending an institution with college athletics. Again,
the idea that athletics is part of being a student was highlighted. In answers to this research
question, there was universal agreement that the presence of athletics promotes academic
achievement on campus through the enhanced sense of belonging and camaraderie that
supporting programs brings. Additionally, academics are improved when admissions and
recruitment numbers rise as more students desire admission, and selectivity creates a more
competitive environment. Also, athletic programs can contribute to institution unity as
departments support a common cause and as athletics supports non-athletic functions on campus.
As discussed in answers to the previous research questions, the understanding that athletes are
among the higher preforming academic groups on campus also contributes to the overall rise in
academics at an institution. This effect becomes more apparent when athletics is used to help
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 101
meet enrollment goals, as filling empty student positions with athletes creates a stronger
academic environment.
Throughout answers to all three research questions, there were a few common themes.
The first was that athletics is an important part of student life both as a driver for a sense of
belonging and as a common area of support throughout the campus. Another shared theme was
that smaller university athletic programs pursue a sense of balance in the lives of athletes among
athletics, academics and personal development. The final shared theme was that the presence of
athletic programs enhances academic performance through the athletes themselves, as high
academic performers, and through a shared sense of belonging on campus.
Hypothesis
The hypothesis of the study that there is a positive effect on the academic performance of
undergraduate students when higher education institutions host athletic programs was confirmed
by this data. The exception were very small schools where no correlation exists. After
determining common themes and ideas from athletic program administrators and confirming
their ideas through a quantitative examination of graduation data, there was a positive effect on
academic performance when the percentage of athletes was higher.
Quantitative Correlation Analysis
The design of this study was selected to explain the presence of positive correlations
between the percentage of athletes on campus and the 6-year graduation rate. The theme selected
for confirmation was that athletics can enhance the university’s academic performance. This
theme was consistent through each research question as respondents stated that athletes
outperform other students academically and that the presence of athletics enhances student life
and sense of student-belonging. To confirm this theme, the percentage of athletes on campus was
correlated with student 6-year graduation rates. Schools with NCAA athletic programs were
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 102
selected and separated into Carnegie size classifications (Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching, 2010). Data analysis showed positive correlations in three of the four
classifications: small, medium, and large school populations. Very small schools (those with
fewer than 1,000 students) did not show any correlation. Small sized schools (1,000 to 2,999
students) had a small positive correlation with a regression coefficient of .535, indicating a .5%
rise in 6-year graduation rates when the student-athlete population rises by one percent. Medium
sized schools (3,000 to 9,999 students) had a medium positive correlation with a regression
coefficient of 2.27, indicating a 2.27% rise in 6-year graduation rates when the student-athlete
population rises by one percent. Large sized schools (at least 10,000 students) had a small
positive correlation with a regression coefficient of 3.41, indicating a 3.41% rise in 6-year
graduation rates when the student-athlete population rises by one percent.
Explanatory Sequential Design Results
A regression analysis was performed to test for correlation between the percentage of
athletes on campus and the 6-year graduation rate of the institution. In three of the four sizing
categories, a significant correlation was found. With the exception of very small schools, the data
indicate that the presence of athletics on a university campus positively affect 6-year graduation
rates—a measure of academic performance. Following this finding, an analysis of interviews
with athletics and university administrators from small universities was conducted. The purpose
of this analysis was to explain the positive correlations found in the regression analysis. These
results indicate that the presence of athletes on a campus can improve university academic
performance (Chapter Four lists additional specific statistical information). The data also outline
that academic performance increases when the percentages of athletes on campus improves.

ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 103
Limitations
There were several limitations to this research. Most notably, there were large
discrepancies in the student populations used to establish the correlations. Within each
population grouping, the differences between the smallest student body size and the largest could
be as much as 200% to 400%. The Carnegie size classifications were chosen for ease of use;
however, future researchers may want to separate campus populations into tighter population
groups. Interviews were conducted with five administrators representing universities from
different areas of the country and of different sizes. However, specific regions and school sizes
could be studied to test for consistencies. Over 1,074 institutions were included in the
quantitative analysis. Big-time schools are generally considered the 129 universities in NCAA
Division I FBS and the handful of additional programs that regularly compete in the NCAA
basketball program (Clotfelter, 2011). This leaves over 900 additional institutions that would be
considered smaller athletic programs in this study. Additional studies need to be conducted that
include more institutions to ensure that the results can be spread to a larger population.
Causality was not discussed unless specifically mentioned by respondents. Though the
effects of athletics on a campus environment are discussed, the causes are not identified. This is
especially true for the correlation of percentage of athletes on campus and improved graduation
rates. Though causality may be suggested, further analysis needs to be conducted to determine
why correlations exist.
Implications for Practice
In higher education, there are constant challenges to budget spending and the necessity of
programs. Accreditation challenges and financial audits result in closer examinations of
programs across the campus, including athletics. Many universities look at elimination of athletic
programs as a way to save money and resources (Perez, 2012; Stinson et al., 2012). University
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 104
athletic programs have not been heavily researched with some researchers suggesting that there
is an unwillingness by universities to closely examine the values of athletic programs (Clotfelter,
2011; Michner, 1976). This is especially true for non-big-time university athletic programs, as
the majority of studies are focused on big-time athletics (Smith, 2009). In this study, one of the
key statements suggested that, “Athletics can enhance academics, and that needs to be taken into
account when executives try to determine priorities” (Respondent D). It is important that
decisions around university athletics be made with knowledge of the available data. This study
outlined that the presence of an athletic program on campus may significantly increase 6-year
graduation rates. The study also lists a series of values and themes that athletics administrators
note that are specific to smaller university athletic programs. These data can be used to help
determine the value of a university athletic program or areas that can be improved.
Conclusion
The motivation for this study was initiated when Brigham Young University-Hawaii,
decided to eliminate athletics. The decision was met with challenges at multiple levels, and there
were many conversations on the values of the program. Realizing there were very little data at
the university to either support or argue the decision, I decided to focus my studies in this
direction. This study was not intended as a critique or support of the decision by BYU-Hawaii to
eliminate athletics. Rather the study was motivated by the decision to eliminate athletics and the
desire to understand the data. Throughout the study, I tried to remain neutral in my beliefs about
the values of athletic programs to a university. In fact, my stance changed several times
throughout the study, moving closer to neutral as time went on. When initially examining the
economics and financial costs of hosting athletics, I became skeptical of the abilities of any
university to justify the cost of running a program. However, after working with athletics
administrators, I began to see values in areas I had not recognized before, such as using athletics
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 105
to drive enrollment numbers. I also quickly recognized that many coaches and athletics staff are
not aware of the program benefits they should be trying to accomplish and, because of this, are
not able to reach their potential. In the course of the next several years, I expect that more
universities will suggest elimination of athletic programs, or, at the very least, go through
significant challenges to maintaining them. It is my hope that those decisions will be based on
data and made in the best interest of the university student body and the community.

ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 106
References
Absher, K., & Crawford, G. (1996). Marketing the community college starts with understanding
students' perspectives. Community College Review, 23, 59-68.
doi:10.1177/009155219602300406
Alexander, D. L., & Kern, W. (2009). The impact of athletic performance on tuition rates.
International Journal of Sport Finance, 4, 240-254. Retrieved from
http://fitpublishing.com/journals/ijsf
Alexander, D. L., & Kern, W. (2010). Does athletic success generate legislative largess from
sports-crazed representatives?: The impact of athletic success on state appropriations to
colleges and universities. International Journal of Sport Finance, 5, 253-267. Retrieved
from http://fitpublishing.com/journals/ijsf
Alter, M., & Reback, R. (2014). True for your school? How changing reputations alter demand
for selective U.S. colleges. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36, 346-370.
doi:10.3102/0162373713517934
Ashburn, E. (2007). To increase enrollment community colleges add more sports. The Chronicle
of Higher Education, 53, A31. Retrieved from http://www.chronicle.com/article/To-
Increase-Enrollment/2420/#!/subscriptions/offers/?PK=M1224&cid=MH2WPW1
Baade, R. A., Baumann, R. W., & Matheson, V. A. (2008). Assessing the economic impact of
college football games on local economies. Journal of Sports Economics, 9, 628-643.
doi:10.1177/1527002508318363
Baade, R. A., Baumann, R. W., & Matheson, V. A. (2011). Big men on campus: Estimating the
economic impact of college sports on local economies. Regional Studies, 45, 371-380.
doi:10.1080/00343400903241519
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 107
Baade, R. A., & Sunberg, J. O. (1996). Fourth down and gold to go? Assessing the link between
athletics and alumni giving. Social Science Quarterly, 77, 789-803. Retrieved from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1540-6237
Beaver, W. (2014). The changing nature of division III athletics. College and University, 89, 34-
40. Retrieved from http://www.aacrao.org/professional-resources/publications/college-
university-journal-%28c-u%29
Benjamin, A. B. (2004). College athletics: Reconnecting academic values in college athletics.
Phi Kappa Phi Forum, 84, 10-11. Retrieved from
http://www.phikappaphi.org/publications-resources/phi-kappa-phi-
forum#.VcxW5XLqemw
Berkowitz, S., Schnaars, C., & Upton, J. (2014, June 4) NCAA finances. USA TODAY. Retrieved
from http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/
Biemiller, L. (2015). The week. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 61(18).
Braddock II, J., H., Lv, H., & Dawkins, M. P. (2008). College athletic reputation and college
choice among African American high school seniors: Evidence from the educational
longitudinal study. Challenge, 14, 14-38. Retrieved from ERIC database.
Brand, M. (2006). The role and value of intercollegiate athletics in universities. Journal of the
Philosophy of Sport, 33, 9-20. doi:10.1080/00948705.2006.9714687
Brewer, R. M., & Pedersen, P. M. (2013). A method for the financial valuation of national
collegiate athletic association football bowl subdivision programs. Journal of
Contemporary Athletics, 7, 175. Retrieved from
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=1673
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 108
Broekemier, G. (2002). A comparison of two-year and four-year adult students: Motivations to
attend college and the importance of choice criteria. Journal of Marketing for Higher
Education, 12, 31-48. doi:10.1300/J050v12n01_03
Broekemier, G., & Seshadri, S. (2000). Differences in college choice criteria between deciding
students and their parents. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 9), 1-13.
doi:10.1300/J050v09n03_01
Buer, T. (2009). Organizational complexity: The athletics department and the university. New
Directions for Higher Education, 2009, 109-116. doi:10.1002/he.374
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2010). The Carnegie Classification of
Institutions of Higher Education, 2010 edition, Menlo Park, CA: Author.
Campbell, A. (2015). Academics first, then athletics. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 61.
A27-A28. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/section/Home/5
Chung, D. J. (2013). The dynamic advertising effect of collegiate athletics. Marketing Science,
32, 679-698. doi:10.1287/mksc.2013.0795
Clopton, A.W. (2007). Predicting a sense of community amongst students from the presence of
intercollegiate athletics: What roles do gender and BCS-affiliation play in the
relationship? The Sport Management and Related Topics (SMART) Journal, 4, 95-110.
Retrieved from http://thesmartjournal.com
Clotfelter, C. T. (2011). Big-time sports in American universities. Cambridge, New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Coates, D., & Depken, C. A. (2011). Mega-events: Is Baylor football to Waco what the Super
Bowl is to Houston? Journal of Sports Economics, 12, 599-620.
doi:10.1177/1527002510391368
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 109
Cortlett, J. A. (2013). On the role and value of intercollegiate athletics in universities. Journal of
Academic Ethics, 11, 199-209. doi:10.1007/s10805-013-9188-5
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Sage publications.
Cunningham, G. B., & Sagas, M. (2005). Access discrimination in intercollegiate athletics.
Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 29, 148-163. doi:10.1177/0193723504271706
Dimitriadis, G. (2012). Value(s) deferred: The excellent university today. Cultural Studies ↔
Critical Methodologies, 12, 290-291. doi:10.1177/1532708612446424
Dixon, M., & Cunningham, G. (2003). New perspectives concerning performance appraisals of
intercollegiate coaches. Quest, 55, 177-192. doi:10.1080/00336297.2003.10491798
Duderstadt, J. J. (2000). Intercollegiate athletics and the American university: A university
president's perspective. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Elias, M. (2013, Nov. 1). Going pro in something other than sports: How Stanford prepares its
student-athletes. The Stanford Daily. Retrieved from
http://www.stanforddaily.com/2013/11/01/going-pro-in-something-other-than-sports-
how-stanford-prepares-its-student-athletes/
Feezell, R. (2015). Branding the role and value of intercollegiate athletics. Journal of the
Philosophy of Sport, 42, 185-207. doi:10.1080/00948705.2014.911098
Flowers, R. D. (2009). Institutional hypocrisy: The myth of intercollegiate athletics. American
Educational History Journal, 36, 343-360. Retrieved from
http://www.infoagepub.com/american-educational-history-journal
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 110
Franco, M., & Pessoa, N. (2014). University sports partnerships as collaborative
entrepreneurship: An exploratory case study. Administration & Society, 46, 885-907.
doi:10.1177/0095399713481597
Fried, B. (2007). Punting our future: College athletics and admissions. Change: The Magazine of
Higher Learning, 39, 8-15. doi:10.3200/CHNG.39.3.8-15
Ganim, S. (2014, March 27). Labor board: Northwestern University football players can
unionize. CNN. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/26/us/northwestern-
football-union.
Gee, G. (2005). A new (old) philosophy of intercollegiate athletics. Phi Kappa Phi Forum, 85(3),
11. Retrieved from http://www.phikappaphi.org/publications-resources/phi-kappa-phi-
forum#.VcxW5XLqemw
Greenberg, N. (2014, December 29). Jim Harbaugh is worth what Michigan will reportedly pay
him. The Washington Post. Retrieved from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fancy-stats/wp/2014/12/29/jim-harbaugh-is-
worth-what-michigan-will-reportedly-pay-him/
Goff, B. (2000). Effects of University Athletics on the University: A Review and Extension of
Empirical Assessment. Journal of Sport Management, 14), 85-104. doi:
10.1123/jsm.14.2.85
Holmes, J. A., Meditz, J. A., & Sommers, P. M. (2008). Athletics and alumni giving: Evidence
from a highly selective liberal arts college. Journal of Sports Economics, 9, 538-552.
doi:10.1177/1527002507313896.
Howard, D., & Stinson, J. (2010). Athletic giving and academic giving: Exploring the value of
SPLIT donors. Journal of Sport Management, 24(6), 744-768. Retrieved from
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 111
http://www.fitnessforlife.org/AcuCustom/Sitename/Documents/DocumentItem/05Stinson
_jsm_2009_0110.pdf
Jenkins, R. (2006). Athletics aren't a luxury at community colleges. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 52, B13. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com
Johnson, D. A., & Acquaviva, J. (2012). Point/counterpoint: Paying college athletes. The Sport
Journal, 15. Retrieved from http://thesportjournal.org/article/pointcounterpoint-paying-
college-athletes/
Jones, A. (2009). Athletics, applications, and yields. College and University, 85, 10-19.
Retrieved from ERIC database.
Kilgore, A. (2014, December 30). Harbaugh's contract with Michigan escalates coaches' salaries
scale, college football arms race. The Washington Post. Retrieved from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2014/12/30/jim-harbaughs-contract-
with-michigan-escalates-coaches-salaries-scale-college-football-arms-race/
Klein, J. L., & Tolson, D. (2015). Wrangling rumors of corruption: Institutional neutralization of
the Jerry Sandusky scandal at Penn State University. Journal of Human Behavior in the
Social Environment, 25, 477-486. doi:10.1080/10911359.2014.983258
Ko, Y. J., Rhee, Y. C., Walker, M., & Lee, J. (2014). What motivates donors to athletic
programs: A new model of donor behavior. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,
43, 523-546. doi:10.1177/0899764012472065
LaForge, L., & Hodge, J. (2011). NCAA academic performance metrics: Implications for
institutional policy and practice. The Journal of Higher Education, 82(2), 217-235.
doi:10.1353/jhe.2011.0008
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 112
Lane, E., Nagel, J., & Netz, J. S. (2014). Alternative approaches to measuring MRP: Are all
men's college basketball players exploited? Journal of Sports Economics, 15, 237-262.
doi:10.1177/1527002512453144
Lentz, B. F., & Laband, D. N. (2009). The impact of intercollegiate athletics on employment in
the restaurant and accommodations industries. Journal of Sports Economics, 10, 351-368.
doi:10.1177/1527002508330284
Letawsky, N. R., Schneider, R. G., Pedersen, P. M., & Palmer, C. J. (2003). Factors influencing
the college selection process of student-athletes: Are their factors similar to non-athletes.
College Student Journal, 37, 604. Retrieved from
http://www.projectinnovation.com/college-student-journal.html
Lifschitz, A., Sauder, M., & Stevens, M. L. (2014). Football as a status system in U.S. higher
education. Sociology of Education, 87, 204-219. doi:10.1177/0038040714533353
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Mansfield, P., & Warwick, J. (2004). Perceived risk in college selection: Differences in
evaluative criteria used by students and parents. Journal of Marketing for Higher
Education, 13, 101-125. doi:10.1300/J050v13n01_07
Martinez, J. M., Stinson, J. L., Kang, M., & Jubenville, C. B. (2010). Intercollegiate athletics and
institutional fundraising: A meta-analysis. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 19, 36-47.
Retrieved from http://fitpublishing.com/journals/smq
Matheson, V. A., O'Connor, D. J., & Herberger, J. H. (2012). The bottom line: Accounting for
revenues and expenditures in intercollegiate athletics. International Journal of Sport
Finance, 7, 30-45. Retrieved from http://fitpublishing.com/journals/ijsf
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 113
Maxcy, J. G., & Larson, D. J. (2015). Reversal of fortune or glaring misallocation: Is a new
football stadium worth the cost to a university? International Journal of Sport Finance,
10, 62-87. Retrieved from http://fitpublishing.com/journals/ijsf
Meyer, S. K. (2005). NCAA academic reforms: Maintaining the balance between academics and
athletics. Phi Kappa Phi Forum, 85, 15-18. Retrieved from
http://www.phikappaphi.org/publications-resources/phi-kappa-phi-
forum#.VcxW5XLqemw
Michner (1976). Sports in America. New York, NY: Penguin Random House LLC
Mixon Jr., F. G., Treviño, L. J., & Minto, T. C. (2004). Touchdowns and test scores: Exploring
the relationship between athletics and academics. Applied Economics Letters, 11, 421-
424. doi:10.1080/1350485042000201906
Morris, L. V. (2013). Athletics, academics, and rankings: The power of competition. Innovative
Higher Education, 38, 171-172. doi:10.1007/s10755-013-9258-z
Murphy, G. B., Tocher, N., & Ward, B. (2014). An examination of public private academic
partnerships: Does program success enhance university performance outcomes? Public
Organization Review, 1, 95-115. doi:10.1007/s11115-014-0298-3
Nadelson, L. S., Semmelroth, C., Martinez, G., Featherstone, M., Fuhriman, C. A., & Sell, A.
(2013). Why did they come here?-The influences and expectations of first-year students'
college experience. Higher Education Studies, 3, 50-62. doi:10.5539/hes.v3n1p50
National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2007). NCAA launches latest public service
announcements, introduces new student-focused website [News release]. Retrieved from
http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/PressArchive/2007/Announcements/NCAA%2BLaunches%2BLa
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 114
test%2BPublic%2BService%2BAnnouncements%2BIntroduces%2BNew%2BStudent-
Focused%2BWebsite.html
National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2010). On the mark: quotes from president Mark
Emmert on various NCAA topics. Retrieved from
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/NCAA+President/On+the+Mark.
National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2013). Revenues and expenses: 2004-2012 NCAA
division II intercollegiate athletics programs report [News release]. Carnegie Foundation
for the Advancement of Teaching. Retrieved from
https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/D2_2013_RevExp.pdf
National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2016). Graduation rates-does a point matter. Retrieved
from
http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/NCAAREPGrad%20Rates_Nov2016_Final.pdf
Nickerson, C., Diener, E., & Schwarz, N. (2011). Positive affect and college success. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 12, 717-746. doi:10.1007/s10902-010-9224-8
Orszag, J. M., & Orszag, P. R. (2005). Empirical effects of division II intercollegiate athletics.
Indianapolis, IN: National Collegiate Athletic Association.
Pampaloni, A. M. (2010). The influence of organizational image on college selection: What
students seek in institutions of higher education. Journal of Marketing for Higher
Education, 20, 19-48. doi:10.1080/08841241003788037
Pike, G. R., & Graunke, S. S. (2015). Examining the effects of institutional and cohort
characteristics on retention rates. Research in Higher Education, 56, 146-165.
doi:10.1007/s11162-014-9360-9
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 115
Peavler, L. (2014, March 28). BYU-Hawaii officially announces plan to phase out athletic
program in three years. Deseret News. Retrieved from
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865599760/BYU-Hawaii-officially-announces-
plan-to-phase-out-athletic-program-in-three-years.html.
Perez, S. J. (2012). Does Intercollegiate Athletics Draw Local Students to a University? Journal
of Sports Economics, 13, 198-206. doi:10.1177/1527002511404509
Pope, D. G., & Pope, J. C. (2009). The impact of college sports success on the quantity and
quality of student applications. Southern Economic Journal, 75, 750-780. Retrieved from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/%28ISSN%292325-8012/issues
Pope, D. G., & Pope, J. C. (2014). Understanding college application decisions: Why college
sports success matters. Journal of Sports Economics, 15, 107-131. Retrieved from
http://jse.sagepub.com
Redding, R. (2015). 2015 NCAA rules and interpretations. Retrieved from
http://www.ncaapublications.com/p-4387-2015-ncaa-football-rules-and-
interpretations.aspx
version.aspx?CategoryID=0&SectionID=0&ManufacturerID=0&DistributorID=0&Genre
ID=0&VectorID=0&
Rosas, F., & Orazem, P. F. (2014). Is self-sufficiency for women's collegiate athletics a hoop
dream?: Willingness to pay for mens and womens basketball tickets. Journal of Sports
Economics, 15, 579-600. Retrieved from http://jse.sagepub.com
Salkind, N. J. (2014). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics (5th ed.). Los Angeles,
CA: SAGE.
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 116
Scarborough, A. (2015, June 2). UAB reinstates football for 2016. Retrieved from
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/12991674/uab-blazers-football-return.
Siegfried, J., & Getz, M. (2012). College sports: The mystery of the zero-sum game. Change:
The Magazine of Higher Learning, 44, 52-59. doi:10.1080/00091383.2012.636006
Smith, D. R. (2009). College football and student quality: An advertising effect or culture and
tradition? The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 68, 553-579.
doi:10.1111/j.1536-7150.2009.00639.x
Smith, D. R. (2012). The curious (and spurious?) relationship between intercollegiate athletic
success and tuition rates. International Journal of Sport Finance, 7, 3-18. Retrieved from
http://fitpublishing.com/journals/ijsf
Sperber, M. (2008). Stop hiding the financial truth about college athletics. The Chronicle of
Higher Education, 54, A31. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/section/Home/5
Stinson, J. L., Marquardt, A., & Chandley, J. (2012). An empirical examination of university
intercollegiate athletic expenditures. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 21, 104-114. Retrieved
from
http://scholarship.richmond.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=marketing-
faculty-publications
Svrluga, S. (2015, January 23). Lawsuit filed against NCAA, University of North Carolina in
'paper class' athletics scandal. Retrieved from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/01/22/lawsuit-filed-against-
ncaa-university-of-north-carolina-in-paper-class-athletics-scandal/
Sung, J., Koo, G., Kim, S., & Dittmore, S. W. (2015). Enhancement of non-academic
enviornment [sic] by intercollegiate athletics and its intangible benefit in higher
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 117
education. Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 15, 47-52. Retrieved from
http://efsupit.ro
Trenkamp, B. A. (2009). Does the advertising effect of athletics impact academic rankings?
Applied Economics Letters, 16, 373-378. doi:10.1080/13504850601018585
Tucker, I. B. (2005). Big-time pigskin success: Is there an advertising effect? Journal of Sports
Economics, 6, 222-229. doi:10.1177/1527002504263398
Tucker, I. B. (2004). A reexamination of the effect of big-time football and basketball success on
graduation rates and alumni giving rates. Economics of Education Review, 23, 655-661.
doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2004.03.001
UAB Athletics. (2015, June 1). UAB president announces planned return of football, bowling,
and rifle. Retrieved from http://www.uabsports.com/genrel/060115aab.html
United States Department of Education. (2015). Equity in athletics data analysis cutting tool.
Office of Post-Secondary Education. Retrieved from http://ope.ed.gov/athletics.
U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education
Statistics. (2014). Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/
van Rheenen, D. (2012). Exploitation in college sports: Race, revenue, and educational reward.
International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 48, 550-571.
doi:10.1177/1012690212450218
Watkins, B. A., & Gonzenbach, W. J. (2013). Assessing university brand personality through
logos: An analysis of the use of academics and athletics in university branding. Journal
of Marketing for Higher Education, 23, 15-33. doi:10.1080/08841241.2013.805709
Weaver, K. (2015). Trophies, treasure, and turmoil: College athletics at a tipping point. Change:
The Magazine of Higher Learning, 47, 36-45. doi:10.1080/00091383.2015.996090
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 118
Weiss, S. M., & Robinson, T. L. (2013). An investigation of factors relating to retention of
Student–Athletes participating in NCAA division II athletics. Interchange, 44, 83-104.
doi:10.1007/s10780-013-9198-7
Williams, M. R., Byrd, L., & Pennington, K. (2008). Intercollegiate athletics at the community
college. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 32, 453-461. doi:
10.1080/10668920701884463
Wolverton, B. (2007). Growth in sports gifts may mean fewer academic donations. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 54. Retrieved from
http://www.chronicle.com/article/Growth-in-Sports-Gifts-May/25915
Zobell, R. (2012, Sept. 6). BYU athletics: Going pro in something other than sports. Deseret
News. Retrieved from http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865561916/BYU-athletics-
Going-pro-in-something-other-than-sports.html?pg=all

ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 119
Appendix A
Interview Protocols
Interview Sheet
Academic Value in College Athletic Programs
Part A. Interviewee Information
Name of interviewee:
Name of institution:
Size of Institution: Type: public / private
Survey type (face to face, video conference, phone call):
Job title:
Educational background of interviewee:
Experience of interviewee in higher education and athletics:

Part B. Interview Questions (Answers recorded on separate paper)
1. What are some differences that you recognize between larger university athletic programs and
smaller college athletic programs?
2. What is your highest priority, or the most important value measurement, for a university or
college athletic program?
3. What are some additional benefits that universities can realize from hosting athletics? How do
you know these benefits exist?
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 120
4. How do athletes affect recruiting and admissions in the programs you work with?
5. What role does athletics play in student life?
6. Are there any academic benefits to the university in hosting athletic programs and what are
they?
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education

INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

Title: A Comparison of Values of College Athletic Programs by Institution Size- Athletics Affect
on Graduation Rates
You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by David Dooley under the
supervision of Robert Keim at the University of Southern California because you are actively
involved in a university athletic program as a school administrator, conference administrator, or
athletic department administrator. Research studies include only people who voluntarily
choose to take part. This document explains information about this study. You should ask
questions about anything that is unclear to you.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This study will attempt to identify values in athletic programs that are present in smaller
universities and colleges. Analysis of interviews with university and college administrators will
determine some of the primary values they expect to achieve when hosting athletic programs.
The interview analysis will then be used to determine an appropriate quantitative analysis to
compare the beliefs of the administrators with historical data. The study will also outline the
likelihood that values will be present according to the size of the university.
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to participate in a 40-60 minute phone
or video conference interview with me. Questions are included in this section for you to
preview before agreeing to be interviewed. You do not have to answer any question you do not
wish to. As the interviews are narrative any additional information you may wish to share will
be valued.
Questions:
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 121
1. What are some differences that you recognize between larger university athletic
programs and smaller college athletic programs?
2. What is your highest priority, or the most important value measurement, for a
university or college athletic program?
3. What are some additional benefits that universities can realize from hosting athletics?
How do you know these benefits exist?
4. How do athletes affect recruiting and admissions in the programs you work with?
5. What role does athletics play in student life?
6. Are there any academic benefits to the university in hosting athletic programs and what
are they?

CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential.
Audio recordings will be taken- if you would prefer that a recording is not used hand-written
notes will be taken. All recordings will be destroyed upon completion of transcription of
recordings. A final copy of the dissertation will also be made available to you.

The anonymous data will be stored on a password protected computer and/or in a locked file
cabinet in the researcher ’s office. At the completion of the study, the anonymous data may be
used for future research studies. If you do not want your data used in future studies, you should
not participate.

The results of this research may be made public, shared with participating sites and quoted in
professional journals and meetings, but results from this study will only be reported as a group
such that no individual respondents can be identified. No identifiable information will be
included.

Required language:
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California ’s Human Subjects
Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies
to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact David
Dooley the principal investigator. davdooley@gmail.com; (808)782-9876, BYU-Hawaii, 55-220
Kulanui St., Laie, HI, 96762.

ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 122
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant or the
research in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to
someone independent of the research team, please contact the University Park Institutional
Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-
5272 or upirb@usc.edu.

ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 123
Appendix B
Quantitative Research Data
Table B1
Very Small Sized Schools Data
Survey
Year
UNITID Total
Undergraduates
Total
Athletes
Percentage
Athletes on
Campus
6 Year
%
2014 210492 264 106 40.15% 42
2014 217013 354 75 21.19% 37
2014 237640 375 218 58.13% 44
2014 153621 386 151 39.12% 30
2014 167455 397 78 19.65% 30
2014 237783 402 180 44.78% 11
2014 211024 410 115 28.05% 52
2014 172440 423 144 34.04% 35
2014 231086 426 148 34.74% 35
2014 215691 442 151 34.16% 61
2014 152099 466 151 32.40% 57
2014 206349 485 105 21.65% 52
2014 173142 487 160 32.85% 51
2014 130989 491 153 31.16% 40
2014 197230 519 182 35.07% 56
2014 146825 524 252 48.09% 36
2014 163578 538 80 14.87% 48
2014 158477 543 228 41.99% 56
2014 230898 547 126 23.03% 42
2014 143288 553 138 24.95% 45
2014 186618 553 62 11.21% 54
2014 115728 557 254 45.60% 39
2014 239512 567 170 29.98% 54
2014 107558 570 195 34.21% 48
2014 182661 578 192 33.22% 47
2014 217998 582 375 64.43% 65
2014 216542 592 96 16.22% 47
2014 144971 629 181 28.78% 56
2014 206330 632 322 50.95% 33
2014 161341 650 117 18.00% 37
2014 233301 653 239 36.60% 57
2014 129774 661 195 29.50% 43
2014 157076 662 325 49.09% 36
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 124
2014 239071 671 178 26.53% 45

ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 125
Table B1, continued
2014 233611 682 289 42.38% 30
2014 202514 689 310 44.99% 50
2014 198066 692 389 56.21% 32
2014 198598 697 324 46.48% 35
2014 173452 708 213 30.08% 73
2014 139630 709 447 63.05% 39
2014 237181 712 440 61.80% 49
2014 211468 719 79 10.99% 61
2014 203580 747 441 59.04% 48
2014 130314 752 90 11.97% 58
2014 175980 753 343 45.55% 72
2014 215114 766 146 19.06% 63
2014 164492 769 237 30.82% 47
2014 161563 779 217 27.86% 46
2014 140720 783 162 20.69% 22
2014 183211 788 179 22.72% 51
2014 199607 790 89 11.27% 63
2014 201371 794 341 42.95% 56
2014 167251 800 142 17.75% 42
2014 140234 803 344 42.84% 43
2014 174862 804 250 31.09% 47
2014 120184 806 178 22.08% 47
2014 239628 814 292 35.87% 72
2014 231420 817 272 33.29% 40
2014 237358 825 210 25.45% 48
2014 190248 831 160 19.25% 48
2014 213400 835 170 20.36% 73
2014 168290 836 125 14.95% 58
2014 191621 842 194 23.04% 50
2014 199306 843 390 46.26% 41
2014 226587 846 333 39.36% 37
2014 174437 868 127 14.63% 46
2014 177418 878 200 22.78% 34
2014 220604 890 74 8.31% 8
2014 197911 890 264 29.66% 48
2014 238980 893 297 33.26% 46
2014 219383 896 347 38.73% 48
2014 148405 896 220 24.55% 38
2014 199272 903 155 17.17% 31
2014 101435 908 425 46.81% 47
2014 176318 908 142 15.64% 32
2014 167598 911 248 27.22% 51
2014 159568 918 326 35.51% 39

ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 126
Table B1 continued
2014 157757 920 180 19.57% 38
2014 171599 921 424 46.04% 43
2014 230913 924 151 16.34% 31
2014 198808 927 278 29.99% 34
2014 211608 936 205 21.90% 23
2014 179946 936 240 25.64% 70
2014 150455 938 236 25.16% 72
2014 197027 939 352 37.49% 76
2014 232672 940 78 8.30% 49
2014 102270 944 176 18.64% 25
2014 225548 945 311 32.91% 43
2014 145691 945 354 37.46% 62
2014 131450 951 202 21.24% 33
2014 161518 951 281 29.55% 51
2014 207351 959 156 16.27% 28
2014 228042 962 272 28.27% 34
2014 238078 963 486 50.47% 61
2014 189848 963 250 25.96% 47
2014 217907 967 399 41.26% 56
2014 240338 980 337 34.39% 58
2014 110404 983 216 21.97% 92
2014 237118 989 620 62.69% 42
2014 232025 992 360 36.29% 46
2014 191676 993 249 25.08% 67

Table B2
Small Sized Schools Data
Survey
Year
UNITID Total
Undergraduates
Total
Athletes
Percentage
Athletes on
Campus
6 Year
%
2014 199582 1001 280 27.97% 35
2014 150604 1002 436 43.51% 60
2014 167394 1003 221 22.03% 68
2014 216357 1009 413 40.93% 32
2014 157818 1010 316 31.29% 74
2014 152363 1012 362 35.77% 50
2014 140696 1015 259 25.52% 55
2014 161299 1018 238 23.38% 74
2014 148131 1019 379 37.19% 56
2014 179955 1019 401 39.35% 69

ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 127
Table B2, continued
2014 145372 1022 360 35.23% 54
2014 218539 1026 354 34.50% 68
2014 237385 1028 234 22.76% 30
2014 155335 1028 211 20.53% 43
2014 218414 1047 475 45.37% 40
2014 165644 1047 172 16.43% 48
2014 139393 1049 217 20.69% 61
2014 203085 1064 479 45.02% 53
2014 203128 1064 378 35.53% 63
2014 213358 1065 206 19.34% 47
2014 153162 1077 323 29.99% 71
2014 190770 1080 208 19.26% 36
2014 195243 1086 277 25.51% 49
2014 236452 1088 218 20.04% 54
2014 232256 1104 315 28.53% 68
2014 131876 1104 50 4.53% 30
2014 213011 1107 253 22.85% 53
2014 206507 1110 397 35.77% 41
2014 224527 1111 341 30.69% 32
2014 216807 1115 370 33.18% 78
2014 232043 1123 238 21.19% 59
2014 150756 1127 417 37.00% 65
2014 140818 1137 257 22.60% 52
2014 204200 1142 376 32.92% 58
2014 128498 1146 184 16.06% 43
2014 142461 1159 241 20.79% 55
2014 230931 1159 168 14.50% 30
2014 211583 1163 249 21.41% 47
2014 220710 1166 342 29.33% 54
2014 221892 1171 188 16.05% 54
2014 224004 1175 263 22.38% 32
2014 190983 1177 302 25.66% 57
2014 102234 1178 273 23.17% 62
2014 100937 1178 467 39.64% 66
2014 167260 1180 387 32.80% 50
2014 219833 1183 204 17.24% 60
2014 212911 1184 409 34.54% 93
2014 166948 1198 283 23.62% 42
2014 113698 1204 170 14.12% 57
2014 157809 1209 423 34.99% 49
2014 131399 1214 109 8.98% 16
2014 198215 1218 409 33.58% 50
2014 194958 1219 288 23.63% 59

ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 128
Table B2, continued
2014 238333 1219 308 25.27% 78
2014 226383 1222 203 16.61% 43
2014 228981 1228 399 32.49% 45
2014 213303 1230 289 23.50% 45
2014 228501 1237 246 19.89% 24
2014 168546 1239 442 35.67% 72
2014 237215 1247 116 9.30% 25
2014 151777 1247 464 37.21% 57
2014 214166 1247 179 14.35% 33
2014 220598 1249 206 16.49% 36
2014 174075 1249 248 19.86% 47
2014 204617 1255 406 32.35% 41
2014 162760 1255 280 22.31% 60
2014 190761 1269 214 16.86% 33
2014 222983 1270 286 22.52% 77
2014 147341 1272 418 32.86% 58
2014 211352 1283 274 21.36% 48
2014 203845 1283 349 27.20% 63
2014 234164 1285 210 16.34% 30
2014 173328 1288 291 22.59% 47
2014 174817 1289 335 25.99% 62
2014 220631 1292 295 22.83% 45
2014 112260 1292 496 38.39% 92
2014 198862 1293 148 11.45% 23
2014 239080 1293 238 18.41% 51
2014 184773 1299 209 16.09% 49
2014 153108 1307 531 40.63% 69
2014 224323 1312 244 18.60% 69
2014 140988 1314 478 36.38% 47
2014 182634 1315 334 25.40% 56
2014 216667 1316 530 40.27% 74
2014 226231 1316 218 16.57% 61
2014 107080 1317 369 28.02% 72
2014 198756 1318 218 16.54% 42
2014 198835 1319 498 37.76% 49
2014 213668 1326 413 31.15% 65
2014 203775 1327 402 30.29% 62
2014 198899 1330 395 29.70% 46
2014 212984 1333 136 10.20% 62
2014 184348 1335 252 18.88% 69
2014 153144 1340 440 32.84% 68
2014 212656 1344 340 25.30% 62
2014 192192 1347 272 20.19% 50

ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 129
Table B2, continued
2014 237312 1351 477 35.31% 41
2014 168591 1351 540 39.97% 67
2014 237969 1353 584 43.16% 58
2014 217776 1353 199 14.71% 56
2014 183910 1354 227 16.77% 51
2014 199412 1358 403 29.68% 52
2014 233295 1358 452 33.28% 56
2014 204468 1359 714 52.54% 36
2014 204264 1361 560 41.15% 50
2014 146427 1365 369 27.03% 81
2014 167288 1366 191 13.98% 47
2014 199069 1369 405 29.58% 44
2014 166692 1373 329 23.96% 61
2014 166452 1375 135 9.82% 46
2014 164447 1376 481 34.96% 39
2014 219259 1376 346 25.15% 46
2014 156408 1378 553 40.13% 87
2014 215266 1378 184 13.35% 49
2014 131098 1382 431 31.19% 31
2014 157058 1387 236 17.02% 14
2014 184612 1390 171 12.30% 42
2014 233897 1391 213 15.31% 42
2014 144351 1396 346 24.79% 49
2014 164216 1396 358 25.64% 69
2014 198303 1408 358 25.43% 24
2014 215947 1409 440 31.23% 57
2014 216694 1410 468 33.19% 60
2014 207306 1415 443 31.31% 31
2014 194161 1416 160 11.30% 42
2014 234173 1419 316 22.27% 48
2014 213598 1421 240 16.89% 37
2014 170532 1421 364 25.62% 81
2014 232089 1432 458 31.98% 33
2014 107512 1443 390 27.03% 59
2014 162654 1444 252 17.45% 66
2014 153825 1445 562 38.89% 66
2014 197984 1447 400 27.64% 43
2014 239017 1449 299 20.63% 73
2014 195128 1458 190 13.03% 52
2014 154350 1466 591 40.31% 67
2014 237057 1466 282 19.24% 87
2014 225247 1468 398 27.11% 47
2014 214157 1473 381 25.87% 74

ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 130
Appendix B2 Continued. Small Sized Schools Data
2014 215275 1477 169 11.44% 48
2014 181446 1489 432 29.01% 65
2014 187897 1497 279 18.64% 16
2014 190716 1503 208 13.84% 40
2014 182795 1507 479 31.79% 50
2014 213251 1513 426 28.16% 75
2014 228343 1516 416 27.44% 75
2014 199643 1519 162 10.66% 26
2014 126669 1523 235 15.43% 40
2014 183974 1524 205 13.45% 49
2014 199209 1526 375 24.57% 24
2014 216287 1530 369 24.12% 92
2014 179043 1536 375 24.41% 69
2014 215798 1545 430 27.83% 73
2014 168528 1546 639 41.33% 59
2014 164720 1566 385 24.58% 29
2014 215743 1568 449 28.64% 65
2014 219000 1568 407 25.96% 66
2014 213507 1570 506 32.23% 72
2014 168281 1571 365 23.23% 82
2014 156295 1572 211 13.42% 66
2014 201690 1576 198 12.56% 27
2014 193399 1577 240 15.22% 57
2014 196291 1579 321 20.33% 44
2014 146481 1586 385 24.27% 70
2014 154527 1588 685 43.14% 65
2014 188304 1589 221 13.91% 16
2014 153278 1589 602 37.89% 36
2014 125763 1593 419 26.30% 67
2014 215132 1607 142 8.84% 74
2014 152567 1607 507 31.55% 53
2014 164270 1607 461 28.69% 73
2014 221953 1608 475 29.54% 28
2014 196112 1613 183 11.35% 33
2014 209065 1615 493 30.53% 67
2014 221519 1616 467 28.90% 78
2014 198507 1622 144 8.88% 43
2014 163912 1622 356 21.95% 81
2014 238661 1628 199 12.22% 53
2014 121345 1629 447 27.44% 96
2014 206862 1634 377 23.07% 40
2014 218973 1643 329 20.02% 84
2014 176044 1648 243 14.75% 22

ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 131
Table B2, continued
2014 203535 1648 470 28.52% 90
2014 161226 1649 194 11.76% 58
2014 219806 1652 487 29.48% 55
2014 216524 1654 595 35.97% 74
2014 182980 1660 281 16.93% 43
2014 141486 1661 148 8.91% 36
2014 153384 1666 406 24.37% 90
2014 165936 1670 316 18.92% 74
2014 150066 1673 308 18.41% 57
2014 153001 1675 327 19.52% 51
2014 190725 1676 179 10.68% 48
2014 198613 1676 440 26.25% 57
2014 174491 1680 312 18.57% 66
2014 211981 1682 398 23.66% 58
2014 101587 1691 424 25.07% 27
2014 234085 1700 408 24.00% 71
2014 166391 1705 279 16.36% 44
2014 193353 1707 277 16.23% 56
2014 192749 1707 287 16.81% 58
2014 101675 1712 231 13.49% 15
2014 204909 1715 490 28.57% 68
2014 195164 1718 253 14.73% 64
2014 230834 1718 476 27.71% 40
2014 163462 1723 280 16.25% 67
2014 200217 1727 353 20.44% 20
2014 174251 1741 286 16.43% 60
2014 171492 1742 455 26.12% 54
2014 183822 1742 148 8.50% 37
2014 212197 1742 408 23.42% 74
2014 139764 1745 186 10.66% 29
2014 217873 1746 127 7.27% 44
2014 192925 1749 179 10.23% 45
2014 231581 1759 493 28.03% 57
2014 197197 1762 425 24.12% 66
2014 198385 1765 412 23.34% 92
2014 214069 1773 456 25.72% 68
2014 160977 1773 694 39.14% 88
2014 209612 1784 501 28.08% 63
2014 213826 1787 303 16.96% 68
2014 164465 1792 552 30.80% 95
2014 212832 1793 233 12.99% 73
2014 210739 1794 281 15.66% 68
2014 161004 1797 624 34.72% 95

ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 132
Table B2, continued
2014 210775 1797 329 18.31% 51
2014 126182 1799 612 34.02% 25
2014 213321 1807 457 25.29% 68
2014 188641 1809 501 27.69% 63
2014 132657 1812 224 12.36% 40
2014 165671 1817 242 13.32% 58
2014 233541 1823 388 21.28% 37
2014 128391 1825 367 20.11% 37
2014 180948 1831 351 19.17% 42
2014 206525 1837 602 32.77% 65
2014 161086 1847 639 34.60% 90
2014 178059 1852 282 15.23% 70
2014 207324 1859 229 12.32% 50
2014 128902 1871 537 28.70% 85
2014 234207 1876 486 25.91% 90
2014 145646 1877 510 27.17% 82
2014 133492 1887 200 10.60% 60
2014 199962 1889 510 27.00% 45
2014 191515 1890 582 30.79% 91
2014 206437 1893 572 30.22% 64
2014 148654 1903 175 9.20% 47
2014 147679 1908 368 19.29% 56
2014 183239 1914 463 24.19% 74
2014 170639 1916 171 8.92% 39
2014 193584 1917 386 20.14% 73
2014 175078 1921 357 18.58% 41
2014 240426 1922 284 14.78% 35
2014 237899 1923 219 11.39% 23
2014 139719 1944 207 10.65% 29
2014 147013 1947 591 30.35% 49
2014 233426 1953 355 18.18% 65
2014 210669 1955 422 21.59% 78
2014 206048 1956 688 35.17% 33
2014 217536 1959 449 22.92% 72
2014 179326 1970 401 20.36% 54
2014 214272 1973 298 15.10% 51
2014 198969 1974 554 28.06% 39
2014 221971 1976 192 9.72% 67
2014 177940 1977 266 13.45% 24
2014 189088 1982 245 12.36% 79
2014 173045 1983 427 21.53% 60
2014 148496 1987 232 11.68% 66
2014 210401 1988 407 20.47% 77

ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 133
Table B2, continued
2014 212133 1992 271 13.60% 59
2014 232609 1993 370 18.56% 57
2014 205957 1997 261 13.07% 78
2014 147244 2004 430 21.46% 55
2014 221351 2004 493 24.60% 81
2014 216278 2005 536 26.73% 74
2014 120254 2008 382 19.02% 84
2014 229018 2013 234 11.62% 37
2014 206589 2014 473 23.49% 76
2014 164562 2015 515 25.56% 75
2014 231059 2016 396 19.64% 82
2014 168342 2019 757 37.49% 96
2014 239716 2027 471 23.24% 75
2014 237330 2031 298 14.67% 38
2014 209056 2032 347 17.08% 76
2014 126678 2036 306 15.03% 90
2014 173902 2037 380 18.65% 90
2014 173258 2042 360 17.63% 94
2014 162283 2045 135 6.60% 17
2014 219347 2052 248 12.09% 55
2014 139144 2055 498 24.23% 62
2014 200253 2068 284 13.73% 33
2014 237932 2079 348 16.74% 41
2014 175005 2084 150 7.20% 59
2014 169716 2100 295 14.05% 57
2014 165529 2101 341 16.23% 43
2014 164580 2107 400 18.98% 90
2014 167899 2108 700 33.21% 66
2014 134945 2109 440 20.86% 41
2014 204936 2110 477 22.61% 59
2014 218441 2112 505 23.91% 54
2014 204185 2119 884 41.72% 65
2014 198561 2122 447 21.07% 45
2014 134079 2122 328 15.46% 55
2014 173665 2122 516 24.32% 63
2014 232706 2123 271 12.76% 50
2014 225399 2136 325 15.22% 45
2014 186432 2163 243 11.23% 52
2014 130590 2167 670 30.92% 83
2014 212577 2173 570 26.23% 83
2014 150400 2179 566 25.98% 78
2014 204635 2185 597 27.32% 67
2014 106412 2188 234 10.69% 28

ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 134
Table B2, continued
2014 161457 2190 326 14.89% 58
2014 197045 2196 565 25.73% 47
2014 152318 2196 433 19.72% 76
2014 229267 2201 544 24.72% 80
2014 196866 2202 583 26.48% 83
2014 165334 2204 304 13.79% 80
2014 219046 2207 243 11.01% 37
2014 228149 2207 212 9.61% 57
2014 150534 2214 234 10.57% 68
2014 216931 2214 433 19.56% 61
2014 114813 2225 257 11.55% 59
2014 184694 2225 400 17.98% 58
2014 161165 2237 412 18.42% 41
2014 208822 2251 429 19.06% 64
2014 128744 2254 235 10.43% 32
2014 167996 2256 464 20.57% 80
2014 214175 2257 479 21.22% 87
2014 230995 2259 570 25.23% 53
2014 202523 2263 525 23.20% 86
2014 220516 2265 406 17.92% 49
2014 195216 2280 698 30.61% 80
2014 173300 2282 534 23.40% 68
2014 217633 2286 266 11.64% 48
2014 237066 2298 474 20.63% 76
2014 218238 2306 761 33.00% 42
2014 175616 2308 362 15.68% 37
2014 212009 2308 523 22.66% 85
2014 174899 2311 438 18.95% 65
2014 153834 2312 597 25.82% 77
2014 210571 2330 467 20.04% 53
2014 213783 2332 266 11.41% 48
2014 191630 2342 563 24.04% 76
2014 101709 2357 250 10.61% 47
2014 156286 2365 376 15.90% 62
2014 106485 2366 214 9.04% 23
2014 211088 2366 287 12.13% 65
2014 149781 2367 439 18.55% 90
2014 224226 2372 237 9.99% 54
2014 197133 2380 322 13.53% 91
2014 230047 2390 175 7.32% 48
2014 207661 2396 194 8.10% 20
2014 201548 2403 445 18.52% 59
2014 217721 2405 217 9.02% 29

ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 135
Table B2, continued
2014 196033 2410 283 11.74% 48
2014 195173 2413 193 8.00% 52
2014 136330 2423 200 8.25% 51
2014 173647 2424 673 27.76% 83
2014 212674 2424 620 25.58% 84
2014 239318 2434 377 15.49% 56
2014 138947 2441 203 8.32% 39
2014 213385 2446 518 21.18% 91
2014 201104 2450 540 22.04% 60
2014 136950 2452 424 17.29% 72
2014 143084 2454 716 29.18% 78
2014 214704 2455 176 7.17% 54
2014 213987 2460 613 24.92% 68
2014 230959 2475 676 27.31% 94
2014 102377 2489 245 9.84% 46
2014 192323 2489 361 14.50% 69
2014 173160 2489 457 18.36% 71
2014 218645 2493 193 7.74% 43
2014 121309 2493 201 8.06% 75
2014 144005 2494 161 6.46% 21
2014 127918 2497 213 8.53% 59
2014 207582 2500 261 10.44% 51
2014 196051 2504 421 16.81% 59
2014 179894 2504 287 11.46% 64
2014 107983 2505 358 14.29% 35
2014 195234 2507 294 11.73% 65
2014 218229 2521 198 7.85% 40
2014 236328 2523 498 19.74% 77
2014 217864 2531 344 13.59% 66
2014 165699 2536 465 18.34% 72
2014 215099 2546 265 10.41% 61
2014 175342 2570 249 9.69% 31
2014 168254 2576 466 18.09% 62
2014 218733 2581 250 9.69% 34
2014 219976 2581 283 10.96% 56
2014 147660 2586 545 21.08% 68
2014 202763 2590 598 23.09% 52
2014 212601 2593 457 17.62% 65
2014 238476 2596 701 27.00% 60
2014 195526 2597 367 14.13% 88
2014 130183 2625 292 11.12% 25
2014 184603 2635 236 8.96% 47
2014 217688 2638 302 11.45% 38

ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 136
Table B2, continued
2014 110413 2647 535 20.21% 60
2014 176053 2659 408 15.34% 62
2014 195720 2659 594 22.34% 74
2014 193645 2665 72 2.70% 28
2014 144962 2668 469 17.58% 74
2014 154493 2672 372 13.92% 41
2014 193292 2674 278 10.40% 62
2014 213996 2678 463 17.29% 76
2014 133711 2683 211 7.86% 65
2014 238458 2688 348 12.95% 59
2014 218070 2690 435 16.17% 83
2014 181783 2690 265 9.85% 53
2014 123554 2698 300 11.12% 59
2014 189705 2700 388 14.37% 68
2014 207847 2717 239 8.80% 30
2014 141565 2724 225 8.26% 39
2014 197708 2724 215 7.89% 84
2014 187648 2746 431 15.70% 29
2014 166124 2754 730 26.51% 93
2014 177214 2755 262 9.51% 48
2014 138716 2773 266 9.59% 39
2014 215284 2786 218 7.82% 55
2014 137546 2787 419 15.03% 64
2014 236230 2793 440 15.75% 70
2014 193973 2818 320 11.36% 67
2014 143118 2832 522 18.43% 52
2014 216852 2833 496 17.51% 55
2014 226471 2834 412 14.54% 46
2014 186867 2841 526 18.51% 78
2014 166850 2850 595 20.88% 64
2014 190099 2863 542 18.93% 90
2014 130697 2902 607 20.92% 91
2014 121691 2903 526 18.12% 72
2014 102049 2909 333 11.45% 71
2014 204501 2920 369 12.64% 85
2014 145725 2920 180 6.16% 68
2014 107071 2923 383 13.10% 36
2014 201195 2950 533 18.07% 68
2014 233374 2963 378 12.76% 83
2014 207041 2972 320 10.77% 33
2014 174844 2976 522 17.54% 86
2014 195474 2984 352 11.80% 73
2014 191931 2993 364 12.16% 65
2014 180179 2999 247 8.24% 33
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 137
Table B3
Medium Sized Schools Data
Survey
Year
UNITID Total
Undergraduates
Total
Athletes
Percentage
Athletes on
Campus
6 Year
%
2014 203368 3010 573 19.04% 75
2014 201654 3021 285 9.43% 72
2014 145619 3042 601 19.76% 53
2014 214801 3060 185 6.05% 47
2014 237792 3090 332 10.74% 43
2014 199111 3093 210 6.79% 55
2014 218061 3101 176 5.68% 43
2014 236577 3106 218 7.02% 72
2014 238616 3112 514 16.52% 59
2014 190044 3121 360 11.53% 70
2014 121150 3122 258 8.26% 81
2014 152600 3128 425 13.59% 74
2014 141644 3135 236 7.53% 40
2014 136215 3161 329 10.41% 42
2014 153269 3175 376 11.84% 72
2014 163338 3192 172 5.39% 31
2014 164173 3203 572 17.86% 64
2014 170301 3213 535 16.65% 77
2014 214713 3217 237 7.37% 60
2014 195544 3221 134 4.16% 68
2014 133881 3225 540 16.74% 55
2014 217165 3232 547 16.92% 80
2014 237367 3234 288 8.91% 34
2014 232265 3262 277 8.49% 59
2014 159009 3262 288 8.83% 31
2014 192703 3276 364 11.11% 75
2014 132471 3319 225 6.78% 41
2014 196006 3326 367 11.03% 52
2014 240374 3332 305 9.15% 30
2014 207971 3341 423 12.66% 66
2014 131283 3342 501 14.99% 67
2014 192448 3355 421 12.55% 42
2014 151263 3364 536 15.93% 54
2014 102614 3384 131 3.87% 33
2014 207865 3385 339 10.01% 35
2014 206914 3391 153 4.51% 19
2014 165820 3395 386 11.37% 51

ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 138
Table B3, continued
2014 127185 3398 324 9.54% 38
2014 130934 3399 334 9.83% 33
2014 222178 3405 326 9.57% 59
2014 227845 3436 200 5.82% 69
2014 198136 3446 460 13.35% 51
2014 183080 3463 438 12.65% 55
2014 173124 3467 343 9.89% 44
2014 155025 3470 339 9.77% 42
2014 131113 3485 214 6.14% 34
2014 211291 3522 775 22.00% 90
2014 213367 3560 395 11.10% 68
2014 196200 3573 276 7.72% 51
2014 139311 3581 119 3.32% 28
2014 128106 3600 585 16.25% 34
2014 209825 3608 268 7.43% 74
2014 194091 3618 201 5.56% 46
2014 117140 3620 382 10.55% 59
2014 196237 3636 178 4.90% 36
2014 232681 3660 383 10.46% 76
2014 162007 3667 228 6.22% 35
2014 129242 3685 450 12.21% 81
2014 214689 3690 231 6.26% 67
2014 132602 3693 325 8.80% 35
2014 196219 3694 184 4.98% 59
2014 217402 3705 373 10.07% 87
2014 165662 3707 214 5.77% 82
2014 165015 3709 301 8.12% 90
2014 120883 3709 328 8.84% 63
2014 214591 3732 304 8.15% 67
2014 140447 3736 423 11.32% 63
2014 169080 3752 373 9.94% 77
2014 220613 3766 233 6.19% 49
2014 186283 3771 341 9.04% 67
2014 156082 3785 289 7.64% 34
2014 198543 3788 147 3.88% 31
2014 146612 3815 363 9.52% 59
2014 215929 3818 384 10.06% 83
2014 178387 3821 268 7.01% 30
2014 181002 3835 305 7.95% 75
2014 227757 3843 365 9.50% 92
2014 226833 3864 310 8.02% 40
2014 168227 3868 301 7.78% 64
2014 165866 3872 320 8.26% 52

ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 139
Table B3, continued
2014 100654 3930 261 6.64% 32
2014 161554 3957 363 9.17% 30
2014 215655 3966 426 10.74% 54
2014 186371 3983 246 6.18% 63
2014 211644 4015 367 9.14% 48
2014 217518 4024 479 11.90% 61
2014 163046 4027 393 9.76% 84
2014 168421 4031 584 14.49% 84
2014 482149 4052 195 4.81% 27
2014 178341 4060 349 8.60% 33
2014 199999 4094 203 4.96% 40
2014 192439 4110 238 5.79% 22
2014 164739 4111 521 12.67% 84
2014 168430 4134 404 9.77% 51
2014 213613 4138 424 10.25% 47
2014 210429 4154 325 7.82% 45
2014 162584 4154 570 13.72% 44
2014 140960 4158 262 6.30% 32
2014 198695 4165 316 7.59% 61
2014 107044 4165 407 9.77% 61
2014 218742 4166 238 5.71% 38
2014 232566 4178 222 5.31% 61
2014 182670 4184 888 21.22% 96
2014 240277 4197 258 6.15% 51
2014 126775 4208 373 8.86% 67
2014 236595 4223 363 8.60% 78
2014 130253 4229 778 18.40% 63
2014 206622 4239 270 6.37% 78
2014 243133 4243 243 5.73% 46
2014 190646 4244 111 2.62% 17
2014 226152 4261 201 4.72% 39
2014 225627 4269 414 9.70% 48
2014 234155 4280 248 5.79% 44
2014 228802 4280 323 7.55% 41
2014 100706 4281 161 3.76% 47
2014 129215 4287 312 7.28% 53
2014 217059 4335 422 9.73% 59
2014 130776 4362 370 8.48% 42
2014 185572 4365 523 11.98% 64
2014 199281 4369 441 10.09% 34
2014 143358 4370 205 4.69% 78
2014 100724 4382 317 7.23% 26
2014 232937 4406 299 6.79% 36

ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 140
Table B3, continued
2014 218964 4408 319 7.24% 53
2014 160621 4416 361 8.17% 28
2014 166683 4442 767 17.27% 93
2014 129525 4445 290 6.52% 52
2014 183062 4549 342 7.52% 62
2014 188429 4576 362 7.91% 66
2014 181215 4589 437 9.52% 56
2014 222831 4608 315 6.84% 32
2014 101879 4643 308 6.63% 32
2014 215770 4664 461 9.88% 79
2014 106245 4665 165 3.54% 19
2014 129941 4673 324 6.93% 56
2014 138789 4674 161 3.44% 31
2014 185129 4675 170 3.64% 34
2014 174358 4678 323 6.90% 46
2014 235316 4693 342 7.29% 81
2014 201645 4744 524 11.05% 78
2014 159966 4744 328 6.91% 39
2014 108092 4752 132 2.78% 25
2014 366252 4768 188 3.94% 40
2014 139366 4780 219 4.58% 34
2014 196158 4795 319 6.65% 64
2014 199847 4803 387 8.06% 87
2014 159993 4842 323 6.67% 37
2014 219471 4853 383 7.89% 45
2014 168263 4867 446 9.16% 60
2014 192819 4872 591 12.13% 80
2014 160038 4892 351 7.17% 36
2014 199157 4919 329 6.69% 43
2014 178624 4937 412 8.35% 52
2014 230603 4954 295 5.95% 36
2014 213543 4963 637 12.83% 88
2014 240471 4964 337 6.79% 54
2014 186201 4980 330 6.63% 73
2014 231712 4989 543 10.88% 67
2014 168005 5012 208 4.15% 56
2014 207263 5045 264 5.23% 30
2014 190691 5069 201 3.97% 26
2014 196246 5078 341 6.72% 61
2014 212160 5080 379 7.46% 44
2014 168148 5108 733 14.35% 92
2014 193016 5110 246 4.81% 34
2014 159939 5173 133 2.57% 34

ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 141
Table B3, continued
2014 230171 5226 344 6.58% 63
2014 178615 5239 464 8.86% 74
2014 171128 5241 366 6.98% 66
2014 186131 5258 1061 20.18% 96
2014 127060 5297 332 6.27% 76
2014 211361 5328 351 6.59% 54
2014 186584 5337 266 4.98% 67
2014 122931 5356 351 6.55% 86
2014 109785 5400 440 8.15% 63
2014 196167 5414 438 8.09% 79
2014 219709 5420 246 4.54% 67
2014 130794 5467 833 15.24% 96
2014 155681 5467 339 6.20% 50
2014 224554 5474 323 5.90% 36
2014 139861 5481 189 3.45% 57
2014 122436 5491 462 8.41% 76
2014 155061 5518 441 7.99% 41
2014 163453 5523 274 4.96% 29
2014 217420 5543 259 4.67% 43
2014 409698 5548 283 5.10% 37
2014 194824 5556 579 10.42% 84
2014 110361 5571 377 6.77% 59
2014 108232 5601 200 3.57% 32
2014 212115 5612 454 8.09% 57
2014 198516 5638 382 6.78% 83
2014 229814 5652 433 7.66% 44
2014 101480 5656 342 6.05% 29
2014 144050 5665 460 8.12% 92
2014 221838 5667 192 3.39% 35
2014 211440 5696 440 7.72% 87
2014 196185 5711 436 7.63% 67
2014 221768 5730 353 6.16% 49
2014 212106 5743 415 7.23% 74
2014 178411 5745 378 6.58% 65
2014 229063 5842 290 4.96% 12
2014 167729 5843 274 4.69% 45
2014 178420 5847 183 3.13% 47
2014 185828 5855 272 4.65% 54
2014 190637 5864 199 3.39% 35
2014 174914 5872 699 11.90% 74
2014 117946 5899 400 6.78% 75
2014 195030 5911 516 8.73% 85
2014 186399 5932 246 4.15% 61

ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 142
Table B3, continued
2014 216010 5935 485 8.17% 57
2014 175856 5956 272 4.57% 45
2014 111948 5983 450 7.52% 72
2014 191968 6003 790 13.16% 77
2014 196176 6050 319 5.27% 73
2014 196042 6152 334 5.43% 45
2014 157386 6179 316 5.11% 43
2014 228246 6189 444 7.17% 80
2014 196149 6203 761 12.27% 69
2014 231624 6210 538 8.66% 90
2014 160755 6214 328 5.28% 75
2014 228705 6240 309 4.95% 32
2014 217156 6241 888 14.23% 95
2014 187134 6251 522 8.35% 87
2014 167987 6299 485 7.70% 50
2014 196121 6304 617 9.79% 67
2014 227526 6313 402 6.37% 36
2014 214041 6329 407 6.43% 65
2014 130226 6335 430 6.79% 75
2014 191649 6430 322 5.01% 61
2014 226091 6458 330 5.11% 32
2014 198419 6471 713 11.02% 95
2014 122612 6474 203 3.14% 67
2014 131520 6509 389 5.98% 63
2014 216597 6539 574 8.78% 88
2014 137847 6544 422 6.45% 57
2014 159647 6556 320 4.88% 47
2014 178402 6606 260 3.94% 44
2014 179867 6631 503 7.59% 94
2014 144892 6672 472 7.07% 60
2014 110495 6697 264 3.94% 49
2014 221999 6775 346 5.11% 92
2014 110486 6779 309 4.56% 39
2014 219602 6792 287 4.23% 36
2014 229179 6793 89 1.31% 47
2014 130493 6802 411 6.04% 44
2014 240417 6825 453 6.64% 52
2014 166027 6874 1097 15.96% 97
2014 131159 6886 246 3.57% 77
2014 151102 6915 249 3.60% 22
2014 151306 6922 365 5.27% 36
2014 127556 6948 606 8.72% 29
2014 171456 6986 286 4.09% 44

ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 143
Table B3, continued
2014 131496 7001 704 10.06% 94
2014 179159 7003 334 4.77% 70
2014 106467 7013 293 4.18% 41
2014 243744 7018 829 11.81% 95
2014 102553 7025 181 2.58% 26
2014 216038 7038 418 5.94% 62
2014 175272 7106 374 5.26% 53
2014 240462 7106 400 5.63% 52
2014 224147 7130 229 3.21% 39
2014 186876 7168 361 5.04% 65
2014 142276 7171 286 3.99% 31
2014 133650 7187 330 4.59% 40
2014 172051 7201 505 7.01% 38
2014 194310 7219 314 4.35% 56
2014 157401 7227 326 4.51% 54
2014 138354 7261 277 3.81% 45
2014 126580 7308 190 2.60% 47
2014 163851 7334 540 7.36% 67
2014 200004 7344 375 5.11% 48
2014 177968 7360 1355 18.41% 41
2014 106458 7402 346 4.67% 39
2014 115755 7428 373 5.02% 40
2014 190150 7496 732 9.77% 95
2014 142285 7607 305 4.01% 56
2014 139658 7661 375 4.89% 90
2014 128771 7679 376 4.90% 52
2014 123572 7774 277 3.56% 55
2014 141264 7787 303 3.89% 41
2014 187444 7865 307 3.90% 48
2014 202480 7883 408 5.18% 78
2014 179557 7918 336 4.24% 46
2014 165024 7959 455 5.72% 54
2014 161253 7986 459 5.75% 59
2014 213349 8033 487 6.06% 54
2014 191241 8034 528 6.57% 81
2014 176965 8038 439 5.46% 49
2014 239105 8044 319 3.97% 80
2014 237525 8052 360 4.47% 44
2014 228529 8053 333 4.14% 39
2014 106704 8097 373 4.61% 41
2014 217235 8246 430 5.21% 53
2014 127741 8267 344 4.16% 45
2014 240727 8272 454 5.49% 54

ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 144
Table B3, continued
2014 196130 8278 382 4.61% 48
2014 137032 8312 337 4.05% 43
2014 199102 8315 274 3.30% 43
2014 228875 8326 456 5.48% 75
2014 240480 8332 499 5.99% 60
2014 147767 8357 487 5.83% 93
2014 152080 8410 710 8.44% 95
2014 100663 8416 427 5.07% 48
2014 141334 8438 304 3.60% 37
2014 218724 8470 423 4.99% 47
2014 233277 8486 241 2.84% 60
2014 202134 8578 265 3.09% 34
2014 219356 8592 492 5.73% 56
2014 211158 8595 431 5.01% 64
2014 149772 8607 418 4.86% 54
2014 234827 8641 406 4.70% 53
2014 156125 8690 290 3.34% 41
2014 206695 8693 376 4.33% 32
2014 174233 8737 399 4.57% 54
2014 110547 8786 204 2.32% 28
2014 240365 8936 275 3.08% 50
2014 221740 8966 295 3.29% 38
2014 174783 8980 520 5.79% 49
2014 102368 9014 432 4.79% 35
2014 200280 9039 456 5.04% 52
2014 169910 9046 347 3.84% 53
2014 166638 9059 295 3.26% 38
2014 154095 9066 400 4.41% 66
2014 102094 9079 375 4.13% 37
2014 180489 9164 343 3.74% 49
2014 240329 9174 522 5.69% 70
2014 146719 9206 238 2.59% 70
2014 221847 9259 278 3.00% 52
2014 240268 9281 518 5.58% 65
2014 185262 9282 349 3.76% 50
2014 166513 9297 435 4.68% 54
2014 190567 9299 228 2.45% 42
2014 228431 9319 335 3.59% 44
2014 181394 9326 272 2.92% 46
2014 164924 9345 716 7.66% 92
2014 157447 9396 256 2.72% 37
2014 151324 9421 349 3.70% 43
2014 217819 9520 413 4.34% 69

ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 145
Table B3, continued
2014 220075 9540 238 2.49% 41
2014 231174 9601 425 4.43% 76
2014 163268 9641 426 4.42% 61
2014 149231 9696 258 2.66% 52
2014 160612 9716 377 3.88% 34
2014 131469 9738 495 5.08% 80
2014 190549 9812 162 1.65% 54
2014 136172 9812 291 2.97% 48
2014 206604 9892 287 2.90% 40
2014 240189 9901 576 5.82% 58

Table B4
Large Sized Schools Data
Survey
Year
UNITID Total
Undergraduates
Total
Athletes
Percentage
Athletes on
Campus
6 Year
%
2014 190558 10021 203 2.03% 47
2014 235097 10060 290 2.88% 46
2014 215062 10205 928 9.09% 96
2014 190600 10219 205 2.01% 43
2014 243197 10268 160 1.56% 44
2014 135726 10296 402 3.90% 81
2014 104717 10479 468 4.47% 31
2014 184782 10484 464 4.43% 72
2014 195809 10555 300 2.84% 59
2014 433660 10563 249 2.36% 45
2014 206941 10568 397 3.76% 32
2014 188030 10570 404 3.82% 44
2014 176372 10576 339 3.21% 50
2014 482680 10633 198 1.86% 53
2014 110574 10670 271 2.54% 41
2014 230782 10692 326 3.05% 45
2014 200332 10772 418 3.88% 53
2014 190512 10796 187 1.73% 63
2014 243221 10852 343 3.16% 32
2014 173920 10974 482 4.39% 52
2014 190664 11061 196 1.77% 55
2014 180461 11072 316 2.85% 49

ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 146
Table B4, continued
2014 156620 11155 347 3.11% 37
2014 213020 11385 378 3.32% 50
2014 141574 11479 492 4.29% 56
2014 149222 11621 427 3.67% 48
2014 228787 11630 246 2.12% 64
2014 199218 11632 329 2.83% 69
2014 172644 11782 397 3.37% 28
2014 217484 12025 503 4.18% 63
2014 190594 12065 250 2.07% 46
2014 196060 12095 505 4.18% 64
2014 142115 12124 391 3.23% 29
2014 183044 12306 524 4.26% 78
2014 220862 12323 390 3.16% 40
2014 157289 12364 624 5.05% 52
2014 171571 12407 324 2.61% 43
2014 160658 12487 414 3.32% 44
2014 216764 12536 554 4.42% 69
2014 127565 12536 215 1.72% 25
2014 199148 12615 240 1.90% 54
2014 206084 12699 381 3.00% 46
2014 201441 12901 410 3.18% 58
2014 196079 12906 430 3.33% 79
2014 169798 12938 682 5.27% 37
2014 228796 13002 300 2.31% 38
2014 237011 13029 261 2.00% 67
2014 157951 13042 434 3.33% 50
2014 139755 13150 442 3.36% 79
2014 227368 13452 204 1.52% 39
2014 147703 13467 410 3.04% 54
2014 167358 13492 456 3.38% 79
2014 227881 13552 387 2.86% 48
2014 223232 13577 549 4.04% 75
2014 144740 13578 201 1.48% 68
2014 185590 13755 488 3.55% 63
2014 183026 13840 324 2.34% 59
2014 182290 13856 371 2.68% 54
2014 209807 13914 290 2.08% 42
2014 179566 13995 433 3.09% 55
2014 190415 14182 1086 7.66% 93

ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 147
Table B4, continued
2014 196413 14229 605 4.25% 82
2014 212054 14346 447 3.12% 65
2014 176080 14561 359 2.47% 58
2014 110510 14688 236 1.61% 44
2014 110538 14743 320 2.17% 57
2014 150136 14913 443 2.97% 57
2014 234076 14939 767 5.13% 93
2014 204024 15029 515 3.43% 80
2014 200800 15078 432 2.87% 40
2014 196097 15143 402 2.65% 70
2014 133669 15178 424 2.79% 41
2014 232982 15214 527 3.46% 49
2014 197869 15238 462 3.03% 66
2014 145600 15397 321 2.08% 58
2014 230737 15540 357 2.30% 17
2014 172699 15581 357 2.29% 56
2014 230728 15728 506 3.22% 50
2014 139931 15793 393 2.49% 50
2014 110714 15825 263 1.66% 74
2014 228769 15925 236 1.48% 40
2014 164988 16083 608 3.78% 84
2014 187985 16121 486 3.01% 45
2014 176017 16418 391 2.38% 60
2014 164076 16503 508 3.08% 66
2014 217882 16529 465 2.81% 82
2014 220978 16571 369 2.23% 45
2014 230764 16912 417 2.47% 59
2014 145813 16968 432 2.55% 71
2014 204857 16986 401 2.36% 63
2014 155317 16995 435 2.56% 64
2014 151111 17119 264 1.54% 38
2014 182281 17340 406 2.34% 41
2014 130943 17458 608 3.48% 80
2014 129020 17524 659 3.76% 82
2014 199120 17526 771 4.40% 89
2014 140164 17532 297 1.69% 42
2014 215293 17627 511 2.90% 79
2014 110592 17707 210 1.19% 37
2014 207500 17711 591 3.34% 66

ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 148
Table B4, continued
2014 232186 17713 486 2.74% 66
2014 110556 17718 445 2.51% 48
2014 169248 17860 465 2.60% 57
2014 123961 17898 577 3.22% 90
2014 155399 17956 494 2.75% 58
2014 232423 17970 465 2.59% 80
2014 196088 17991 521 2.90% 71
2014 209542 18002 499 2.77% 61
2014 207388 18121 496 2.74% 62
2014 110671 18439 304 1.65% 66
2014 240453 18448 321 1.74% 43
2014 110422 18517 523 2.82% 72
2014 203517 18539 374 2.02% 52
2014 209551 18654 474 2.54% 67
2014 181464 18660 596 3.19% 65
2014 100858 18746 487 2.60% 68
2014 198464 18796 460 2.45% 58
2014 139940 18839 388 2.06% 51
2014 199139 18982 397 2.09% 53
2014 106397 19029 490 2.58% 60
2014 170082 19083 546 2.86% 66
2014 105330 19166 342 1.78% 49
2014 153658 19375 638 3.29% 70
2014 110529 19684 258 1.31% 51
2014 234030 19687 271 1.38% 56
2014 110705 19913 482 2.42% 80
2014 229027 20086 368 1.83% 28
2014 126818 20132 380 1.89% 63
2014 221759 20178 539 2.67% 66
2014 157085 20513 516 2.52% 58
2014 166629 20551 624 3.04% 70
2014 201885 20578 465 2.26% 62
2014 236939 20771 513 2.47% 67
2014 238032 20863 504 2.42% 56
2014 122755 21278 433 2.03% 47
2014 199193 21283 514 2.42% 71
2014 110617 21294 464 2.18% 41
2014 122597 21454 211 0.98% 47
2014 218663 22952 559 2.44% 72

ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 149
Table B4, continued
2014 159391 23089 448 1.94% 65
2014 137351 23434 472 2.01% 57
2014 193900 23450 558 2.38% 83
2014 225511 23595 398 1.69% 46
2014 233921 23653 574 2.43% 83
2014 227216 23762 322 1.36% 48
2014 110653 24127 342 1.42% 86
2014 126614 24148 340 1.41% 68
2014 110680 24157 568 2.35% 86
2014 230038 24499 629 2.57% 77
2014 216339 24787 508 2.05% 66
2014 122409 24872 546 2.20% 66
2014 163286 24908 511 2.05% 82
2014 139959 25259 552 2.19% 81
2014 133951 25340 390 1.54% 49
2014 229115 25531 423 1.66% 62
2014 178396 25753 572 2.22% 71
2014 228459 26234 373 1.42% 55
2014 110635 26320 931 3.54% 91
2014 110565 26685 295 1.11% 51
2014 110644 26792 571 2.13% 81
2014 110583 27093 353 1.30% 57
2014 153603 27199 406 1.49% 71
2014 170976 27297 867 3.18% 91
2014 100751 27331 632 2.31% 67
2014 232557 27342 486 1.78% 46
2014 236948 27733 632 2.28% 81
2014 240444 27867 780 2.80% 82
2014 174066 27943 750 2.68% 73
2014 243780 28382 533 1.88% 70
2014 134097 28933 505 1.75% 75
2014 110662 29027 760 2.62% 92
2014 110608 29274 391 1.34% 48
2014 104179 29342 480 1.64% 61
2014 134130 29577 512 1.73% 85
2014 151351 31161 698 2.24% 75
2014 145637 31312 456 1.46% 84
2014 186380 32272 615 1.91% 79
2014 171100 35038 735 2.10% 79

ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 150
Table B4, continued
2014 104151 35770 520 1.45% 58
2014 228778 36072 563 1.56% 79
2014 132903 36373 463 1.27% 65
2014 214777 39077 827 2.12% 86
2014 204796 40452 1050 2.60% 82
2014 228723 42017 577 1.37% 80

ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 151
Appendix C
Revenue and Expenses 2013 NCAA Division I Athletics
Appendix C

Revenue and Expenses 2013 NCAA Division I Athletics

SCHOOL
TOTAL
REVENUE
TOTAL
EXPENSES
TOTAL
SUBSIDY
%
SUBSIDY Total Revenue Revenue - Sub
1 Texas $165,691,486 $146,807,585 $0 0 $18,883,901 $18,883,901
2 Wisconsin $149,141,405 $146,659,187 $7,859,675 5.27 $2,482,218 -$5,377,457
3 Alabama $143,776,550 $116,607,913 $5,791,200 4.03 $27,168,637 $21,377,437
4 Michigan $143,514,125 $131,018,311 $255,832 0.18 $12,495,814 $12,239,982
5 Ohio State $139,639,307 $116,026,329 $0 0 $23,612,978 $23,612,978
6 Florida $130,011,244 $106,972,983 $4,444,516 3.42 $23,038,261 $18,593,745
7 Oklahoma $123,805,661 $102,447,553 $0 0 $21,358,108 $21,358,108
8 LSU $117,457,398 $105,312,018 $0 0 $12,145,380 $12,145,380
9 Oregon $115,241,070 $94,972,708 $2,337,377 2.03 $20,268,362 $17,930,985
10 Tennessee $111,579,779 $110,269,194 $12,434,056 11.14 $1,310,585 -$11,123,471
11 Iowa $107,153,782 $106,969,227 $678,842 0.63 $184,555 -$494,287
12 Penn State $104,751,464 $110,737,200 $0 0 -$5,985,736 -$5,985,736
13 Auburn $103,680,609 $103,126,413 $4,315,584 4.16 $554,196 -$3,761,388
14 Arkansas $99,770,840 $92,131,933 $2,027,439 2.03 $7,638,907 $5,611,468
15 Minnesota $98,286,669 $96,427,632 $8,101,066 8.24 $1,859,037 -$6,242,029
16 Georgia $98,120,889 $96,904,626 $3,237,955 3.3 $1,216,263 -$2,021,692
17 Michigan State $97,942,726 $93,743,529 $1,772,415 1.81 $4,199,197 $2,426,782
18 Louisville $96,193,330 $92,383,221 $10,914,122 11.35 $3,810,109 -$7,104,013
19 Kentucky $95,720,724 $93,423,628 $847,079 0.88 $2,297,096 $1,450,017
20 California $94,487,380 $90,126,390 $7,567,235 8.01 $4,360,990 -$3,206,245
21 Texas A&M $93,957,906 $85,114,588 $590,973 0.63 $8,843,318 $8,252,345
22 Oklahoma State $93,664,337 $96,551,860 $7,336,442 7.83 -$2,887,523 -$10,223,965
23 Kansas $93,114,168 $79,720,036 $2,870,626 3.08 $13,394,132 $10,523,506
24 Florida State $91,382,441 $84,772,759 $7,859,734 8.6 $6,609,682 -$1,250,052
25 South Carolina $90,484,422 $89,097,412 $2,537,697 2.8 $1,387,010 -$1,150,687
26 Nebraska $86,916,001 $81,666,269 $0 0 $5,249,732 $5,249,732
27 Washington $85,072,886 $76,209,927 $3,335,999 3.92 $8,862,959 $5,526,960
28 Virginia $84,402,710 $84,201,789 $13,119,353 15.54 $200,921 -$12,918,432
29 UCLA $83,926,720 $83,926,720 $2,627,405 3.13 $0 -$2,627,405
30 North Carolina $82,792,342 $82,735,139 $9,155,221 11.06 $57,203 -$9,098,018
31 Illinois $79,725,521 $78,667,480 $3,913,032 4.91 $1,058,041 -$2,854,991
32 Rutgers $78,989,475 $78,989,475 $46,996,697 59.5 $0 -$46,996,697
33 West Virginia $77,706,698 $73,501,593 $4,461,487 5.74 $4,205,105 -$256,382
34 Indiana $76,660,265 $72,597,053 $2,561,958 3.34 $4,063,212 $1,501,254
35 Missouri $76,306,889 $70,276,015 $1,515,000 1.99 $6,030,874 $4,515,874
36 Mississippi $73,390,050 $71,315,807 $3,831,598 5.22 $2,074,243 -$1,757,355
37 Texas Tech $72,917,990 $66,296,446 $4,010,716 5.5 $6,621,544 $2,610,828
38 Purdue $72,379,392 $74,628,002 $0 0 -$2,248,610 -$2,248,610
39 Kansas State $70,457,283 $59,325,573 $2,486,258 3.53 $11,131,710 $8,645,452
40 Virginia Tech $70,030,484 $66,581,916 $7,888,739 11.26 $3,448,568 -$4,440,171
41 Clemson $69,061,398 $67,091,087 $3,756,657 5.44 $1,970,311 -$1,786,346
42 Arizona $68,510,915 $68,253,136 $7,326,902 10.69 $257,779 -$7,069,123
43
North Carolina
State $67,481,639 $63,137,393 $6,531,331 9.68 $4,344,246 -$2,187,085
44 Arizona State $65,673,955 $65,600,187 $10,120,409 15.41 $73,768 -$10,046,641
45 Oregon State $65,467,970 $64,185,065 $12,270,241 18.74 $1,282,905 -$10,987,336
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 152
46 Nevada-Las Vegas $64,513,044 $63,672,024 $36,163,296 56.06 $841,020 -$35,322,276
47 Maryland $63,714,470 $63,367,929 $15,469,285 24.28 $346,541 -$15,122,744
48 Connecticut $63,336,022 $63,420,811 $18,860,823 29.78 -$84,789 -$18,945,612
49 Mississippi State $62,764,025 $57,362,224 $3,000,000 4.78 $5,401,801 $2,401,801
50 Iowa State $62,357,761 $62,224,194 $1,834,796 2.94 $133,567 -$1,701,229
51 Cincinnati $61,915,431 $59,540,002 $21,754,860 35.14 $2,375,429 -$19,379,431
52 Georgia Tech $61,780,812 $63,630,961 $7,147,389 11.57 -$1,850,149 -$8,997,538
53 Colorado $58,334,345 $66,327,497 $7,097,436 12.17 -$7,993,152 -$15,090,588
54 Washington State $47,191,240 $52,126,124 $6,515,694 13.81 -$4,934,884 -$11,450,578
55 Utah $46,855,283 $49,520,152 $10,239,500 21.85 -$2,664,869 -$12,904,369
56 Memphis $46,346,285 $46,501,314 $18,906,228 40.79 -$155,029 -$19,061,257
57 South Florida $45,066,258 $44,612,535 $17,703,771 39.28 $453,723 -$17,250,048
58 New Mexico $44,345,840 $45,046,275 $15,343,104 34.6 -$700,435 -$16,043,539
59 Boise State $43,166,257 $43,292,010 $11,496,954 26.63 -$125,753 -$11,622,707
60 Houston $42,024,887 $42,664,044 $26,114,464 62.14 -$639,157 -$26,753,621
61 Central Florida $41,222,301 $41,981,093 $22,857,979 55.45 -$758,792 -$23,616,771
62 San Diego State $39,211,827 $42,849,323 $17,579,724 44.83 -$3,637,496 -$21,217,220
63 Air Force $39,031,348 $39,497,086 $25,529,155 65.41 -$465,738 -$25,994,893
64 Army $37,289,204 $27,898,527 $11,199,801 30.03 $9,390,677 -$1,809,124
65 Hawaii $37,017,100 $40,357,387 $14,855,249 40.13 -$3,340,287 -$18,195,536
66 Old Dominion $36,929,483 $35,561,455 $27,089,358 73.35 $1,368,028 -$25,721,330
67 James Madison $36,072,842 $36,072,842 $28,428,737 78.81 $0 -$28,428,737
68 East Carolina $35,805,232 $36,639,494 $14,969,516 41.81 -$834,262 -$15,803,778
69 Colorado State $34,791,926 $34,468,927 $18,013,943 51.78 $322,999 -$17,690,944
70 Delaware $33,750,927 $33,750,927 $26,117,411 77.38 $0 -$26,117,411
71 Fresno State $33,734,773 $33,050,314 $13,039,903 38.65 $684,459 -$12,355,444
72 New Mexico State $30,105,460 $28,484,118 $19,675,074 65.35 $1,621,342 -$18,053,732
73 Massachusetts $30,060,635 $30,731,842 $24,354,427 81.02 -$671,207 -$25,025,634
74 Texas State $29,764,777 $27,690,963 $21,033,289 70.67 $2,073,814 -$18,959,475
75 Wyoming $29,647,103 $29,731,941 $15,875,467 53.55 -$84,838 -$15,960,305
76 Texas-El Paso $29,017,848 $28,964,808 $14,818,397 51.07 $53,040 -$14,765,357
77 Buffalo $28,964,050 $28,960,127 $22,090,445 76.27 $3,923 -$22,086,522
78 North Texas $28,800,436 $28,926,470 $17,628,426 61.21 -$126,034 -$17,754,460
79 Miami (Ohio) $28,705,691 $28,926,951 $19,434,039 67.7 -$221,260 -$19,655,299
80 Western Michigan $28,624,348 $28,630,285 $21,260,585 74.27 -$5,937 -$21,266,522
81
Florida
International $28,332,261 $26,275,579 $21,969,608 77.54 $2,056,682 -$19,912,926
82 California-Davis $28,240,711 $28,881,026 $22,186,230 78.56 -$640,315 -$22,826,545
83
Alabama at
Birmingham $28,159,249 $27,544,633 $18,070,530 64.17 $614,616 -$17,455,914
84 Akron $27,954,164 $28,407,737 $20,769,486 74.3 -$453,573 -$21,223,059
85 Eastern Michigan $27,797,656 $27,797,656 $22,364,722 80.46 $0 -$22,364,722
86 Central Michigan $27,680,624 $27,187,504 $18,572,824 67.1 $493,120 -$18,079,704
87
Middle Tennessee
State $27,667,552 $28,716,516 $19,613,161 70.89 -$1,048,964 -$20,662,125
88 Western Kentucky $27,606,401 $27,607,401 $16,414,010 59.46 -$1,000 -$16,415,010
89 Marshall $27,587,274 $28,337,108 $14,462,623 52.42 -$749,834 -$15,212,457
90 Ohio $27,265,061 $27,027,550 $18,061,353 66.24 $237,511 -$17,823,842
91 Georgia State $26,721,964 $27,261,115 $22,603,029 84.59 -$539,151 -$23,142,180
92
North Carolina
Charlotte $26,681,829 $26,122,465 $18,667,994 69.97 $559,364 -$18,108,630
93 Nevada $26,627,415 $27,274,229 $10,900,404 40.94 -$646,814 -$11,547,218
94 Kent State $26,557,674 $27,116,813 $20,558,816 77.41 -$559,139 -$21,117,955
95
Virginia
Commonwealth $26,515,057 $25,839,126 $18,134,851 68.39 $675,931 -$17,458,920
96 New Hampshire $26,299,884 $25,808,269 $18,294,051 69.56 $491,615 -$17,802,436
97 Northern Illinois $26,259,284 $25,294,053 $17,572,444 66.92 $965,231 -$16,607,213
98 San Jose State $25,854,038 $24,440,274 $17,573,218 67.97 $1,413,764 -$16,159,454
99 Stony Brook $25,122,216 $25,144,617 $19,783,537 78.75 -$22,401 -$19,805,938
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 153
100 Rhode Island $24,890,223 $23,689,560 $18,374,422 73.82 $1,200,663 -$17,173,759
101 Florida Atlantic $24,538,411 $21,967,412 $16,590,468 67.61 $2,570,999 -$14,019,469
102
Texas-San
Antonio $23,807,953 $24,891,193 $14,559,322 61.15 -$1,083,240 -$15,642,562
103 Utah State $23,684,266 $24,307,048 $13,690,026 57.8 -$622,782 -$14,312,808
104 Wichita State $23,643,249 $24,132,710 $6,520,676 27.58 -$489,461 -$7,010,137
105 Bowling Green $23,611,448 $20,701,488 $14,316,811 60.64 $2,909,960 -$11,406,851
106 Toledo $23,054,218 $23,654,141 $11,149,815 48.36 -$599,923 -$11,749,738
107 Towson $22,831,747 $19,969,363 $18,765,410 82.19 $2,862,384 -$15,903,026
108
Southern
Mississippi $22,776,416 $22,399,056 $9,802,774 43.04 $377,360 -$9,425,414
109 Coastal Carolina $22,314,234 $22,190,005 $18,346,325 82.22 $124,229 -$18,222,096
110 George Mason $22,262,650 $22,143,733 $18,685,650 83.93 $118,917 -$18,566,733
111 North Dakota $22,160,308 $22,077,150 $10,976,023 49.53 $83,158 -$10,892,865
112 Ball State $21,315,999 $22,727,145 $15,946,549 74.81 -$1,411,146 -$17,357,695
113 William & Mary $21,303,128 $21,244,506 $11,989,354 56.28 $58,622 -$11,930,732
114 South Alabama $21,115,562 $19,830,068 $16,525,156 78.26 $1,285,494 -$15,239,662
115
California
Polytechnic $21,018,795 $20,483,456 $15,972,717 75.99 $535,339 -$15,437,378
116 Southern Illinois $20,161,644 $23,008,969 $13,134,398 65.15 -$2,847,325 -$15,981,723
117 Montana $20,016,689 $19,246,333 $8,588,502 42.91 $770,356 -$7,818,146
118 Appalachian State $19,775,727 $21,395,675 $10,351,540 52.34 -$1,619,948 -$11,971,488
119 Idaho $19,593,192 $19,719,585 $9,295,270 47.44 -$126,393 -$9,421,663
120 Troy $19,505,723 $19,505,723 $12,857,258 65.92 $0 -$12,857,258
121 Sacramento State $19,410,172 $19,214,711 $15,187,531 78.25 $195,461 -$14,992,070
122 Illinois State $19,336,145 $19,567,197 $12,743,793 65.91 -$231,052 -$12,974,845
123 Maine $18,923,542 $18,874,083 $12,790,924 67.59 $49,459 -$12,741,465
124
North Dakota
State $18,861,510 $18,702,969 $7,806,202 41.39 $158,541 -$7,647,661
125 Louisiana Tech $18,570,493 $18,444,386 $9,214,682 49.62 $126,107 -$9,088,575
126 Vermont $18,140,000 $18,351,709 $13,055,957 71.97 -$211,709 -$13,267,666
127
Louisiana-
Lafayette $18,114,361 $18,652,324 $7,680,055 42.4 -$537,963 -$8,218,018
128 Montana State $17,945,638 $17,963,217 $10,423,452 58.08 -$17,579 -$10,441,031
129 Northern Iowa $16,907,073 $16,771,459 $7,994,868 47.29 $135,614 -$7,859,254
130 Albany $16,378,689 $16,378,689 $13,549,734 82.73 $0 -$13,549,734
131 Arkansas State $16,281,038 $16,281,038 $9,323,491 57.27 $0 -$9,323,491
132
College of
Charleston $15,849,270 $17,400,040 $12,079,978 76.22 -$1,550,770 -$13,630,748
133
California-
Riverside $15,829,265 $16,006,591 $14,069,383 88.88 -$177,326 -$14,246,709
134
Maryland-
Baltimore Cty $15,583,672 $15,299,250 $13,800,160 88.56 $284,422 -$13,515,738
135 Long Beach State $15,514,877 $15,509,188 $10,565,246 68.1 $5,689 -$10,559,557
136 Missouri State $15,495,062 $15,495,062 $8,451,702 54.54 $0 -$8,451,702
137 Lamar $15,414,996 $15,239,395 $12,315,780 79.89 $175,601 -$12,140,179
138 Murray State $15,370,172 $15,107,816 $10,927,207 71.09 $262,356 -$10,664,851
139 California-Irvine $15,221,850 $15,304,005 $12,298,970 80.8 -$82,155 -$12,381,125
140
South Dakota
State $15,148,816 $15,079,750 $7,685,225 50.73 $69,066 -$7,616,159
141
Tennessee-
Chattanooga $14,779,261 $14,779,261 $11,050,995 74.77 $0 -$11,050,995
142 Illinois-Chicago $14,767,012 $14,555,722 $11,237,790 76.1 $211,290 -$11,026,500
143
Sam Houston
State $14,688,326 $12,833,082 $9,951,122 67.75 $1,855,244 -$8,095,878
144
North Carolina
Greensboro $14,672,177 $14,966,482 $12,336,033 84.08 -$294,305 -$12,630,338
145
East Tennessee
State $14,537,258 $14,771,029 $11,342,419 78.02 -$233,771 -$11,576,190
146 Tennessee Tech $14,490,902 $13,079,750 $10,804,881 74.56 $1,411,152 -$9,393,729
147 Central Conn State $14,433,587 $14,287,945 $12,417,886 86.03 $145,642 -$12,272,244
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 154
148
California-Santa
Barbara $14,378,732 $15,708,702 $12,019,964 83.6 -$1,329,970 -$13,349,934
149 Binghamton $14,254,734 $14,459,595 $11,401,072 79.98 -$204,861 -$11,605,933
150 Alabama State $14,145,373 $14,145,373 $12,174,670 86.07 $0 -$12,174,670
151 Youngstown State $13,632,988 $13,632,988 $9,985,370 73.24 $0 -$9,985,370
152 Stephen F. Austin $13,534,926 $13,611,753 $11,234,621 83 -$76,827 -$11,311,448
153 New Jersey Tech $13,479,999 $11,737,782 $11,389,060 84.49 $1,742,217 -$9,646,843
154 Portland State $13,408,148 $13,687,793 $9,659,933 72.05 -$279,645 -$9,939,578
155 Citadel $13,393,117 $13,247,154 $9,259,116 69.13 $145,963 -$9,113,153
156 Jacksonville State $13,354,125 $12,619,261 $9,182,160 68.76 $734,864 -$8,447,296
157
Wisconsin-
Milwaukee $13,278,301 $13,421,922 $10,823,308 81.51 -$143,621 -$10,966,929
158 Georgia Southern $13,200,750 $13,200,750 $8,320,670 63.03 $0 -$8,320,670
159 Eastern Illinois $13,195,645 $13,290,957 $9,569,951 72.52 -$95,312 -$9,665,263
160 Delaware State $13,036,497 $12,696,251 $11,114,182 85.25 $340,246 -$10,773,936
161 Northern Arizona $12,834,870 $12,814,432 $9,520,351 74.18 $20,438 -$9,499,913
162 Indiana State $12,761,811 $12,578,396 $9,518,604 74.59 $183,415 -$9,335,189
163 Oakland $12,720,263 $12,984,095 $10,070,776 79.17 -$263,832 -$10,334,608
164 Tennessee State $12,705,170 $12,490,574 $9,731,915 76.6 $214,596 -$9,517,319
165 Nebraska-Omaha $12,702,133 $12,702,133 $7,931,972 62.45 $0 -$7,931,972
166
North Carolina
A&T $12,535,926 $12,265,815 $9,340,891 74.51 $270,111 -$9,070,780
167 Kennesaw State $12,525,557 $13,931,038 $10,731,979 85.68 -$1,405,481 -$12,137,460
168 Winthrop $12,453,952 $12,264,698 $10,615,257 85.24 $189,254 -$10,426,003
169 Norfolk State $12,449,812 $14,152,218 $10,001,421 80.33 -$1,702,406 -$11,703,827
170 Weber State $12,340,926 $12,285,592 $8,194,660 66.4 $55,334 -$8,139,326
171 Northern Colorado $12,192,974 $12,238,351 $8,380,645 68.73 -$45,377 -$8,426,022
172 Radford $12,180,124 $11,600,355 $10,771,012 88.43 $579,769 -$10,191,243
173 Florida Gulf Coast $12,118,558 $11,775,352 $8,815,838 72.75 $343,206 -$8,472,632
174 Florida A&M $12,045,099 $11,689,605 $6,530,814 54.22 $355,494 -$6,175,320
175 Eastern Kentucky $11,938,695 $11,938,695 $9,378,024 78.55 $0 -$9,378,024
176
Northwestern
State La $11,767,380 $12,339,549 $7,615,219 64.71 -$572,169 -$8,187,388
177 Idaho State $11,677,809 $11,547,220 $7,421,156 63.55 $130,589 -$7,290,567
178 Western Illinois $11,655,872 $12,094,058 $9,015,057 77.34 -$438,186 -$9,453,243
179
North Carolina
Wilmington $11,508,302 $11,292,111 $8,513,874 73.98 $216,191 -$8,297,683
180
California State-
Northridge $11,484,117 $11,368,128 $10,011,132 87.17 $115,989 -$9,895,143
181
Eastern
Washington $11,469,560 $11,538,027 $8,237,849 71.82 -$68,467 -$8,306,316
182
California State-
Fullerton $11,431,787 $11,431,787 $8,857,839 77.48 $0 -$8,857,839
183 Texas-Arlington $11,411,262 $13,970,673 $9,731,470 85.28 -$2,559,411 -$12,290,881
184 Cleveland State $11,290,814 $11,290,814 $9,624,278 85.24 $0 -$9,624,278
185 Western Carolina $11,244,361 $11,387,194 $7,672,001 68.23 -$142,833 -$7,814,834
186
Missouri-Kansas
City $11,235,112 $12,505,431 $9,503,581 84.59 -$1,270,319 -$10,773,900
187 Louisiana-Monroe $11,231,311 $11,439,382 $4,102,322 36.53 -$208,071 -$4,310,393
188
Northern
Kentucky $11,183,718 $11,183,718 $9,304,768 83.2 $0 -$9,304,768
189 Southern Utah $11,116,704 $10,639,948 $8,280,344 74.49 $476,756 -$7,803,588
190
California State-
Bakersfield $11,087,482 $10,250,465 $7,423,916 66.96 $837,017 -$6,586,899
191 VMI $11,059,752 $11,615,757 $4,250,911 38.44 -$556,005 -$4,806,916
192 South Dakota $11,026,009 $11,022,253 $7,297,727 66.19 $3,756 -$7,293,971
193
Southeastern
Louisiana $10,922,554 $10,920,225 $6,535,265 59.83 $2,329 -$6,532,936
194 Central Arkansas $10,769,990 $10,405,098 $7,670,617 71.22 $364,892 -$7,305,725
195 Austin Peay $10,664,764 $9,854,277 $7,339,194 68.82 $810,487 -$6,528,707
196
Prairie View
A&M $10,427,016 $10,548,492 $8,218,661 78.82 -$121,476 -$8,340,137
ACADEMIC VALUE IN COLLEGE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 155
197 Morehead State $10,192,319 $10,192,319 $8,680,040 85.16 $0 -$8,680,040
198 Texas Southern $10,188,987 $10,188,987 $9,096,448 89.28 $0 -$9,096,448
199 Wright State $10,173,926 $10,852,077 $7,766,218 76.33 -$678,151 -$8,444,369
200
South Carolina
State $10,133,673 $10,136,350 $6,809,371 67.2 -$2,677 -$6,812,048
201 Utah Valley $10,053,547 $9,714,656 $8,905,467 88.58 $338,891 -$8,566,576
202
Southeast
Missouri State $9,939,846 $9,953,030 $7,282,542 73.27 -$13,184 -$7,295,726
203
Texas A&M-
Corpus Christi $9,926,048 $9,819,838 $8,084,830 81.45 $106,210 -$7,978,620
204 McNeese State $9,704,926 $10,307,780 $4,492,235 46.29 -$602,854 -$5,095,089
205 North Florida $9,541,774 $9,285,469 $7,416,955 77.73 $256,305 -$7,160,650
206
Arkansas-Little
Rock $9,403,112 $9,015,885 $6,147,811 65.38 $387,227 -$5,760,584
207 Morgan State $9,299,310 $9,986,863 $7,869,413 84.62 -$687,553 -$8,556,966
208
North Carolina
Central $9,169,868 $9,147,577 $6,880,877 75.04 $22,291 -$6,858,586
209 Tennessee-Martin $9,087,815 $9,087,815 $6,849,522 75.37 $0 -$6,849,522
210 Longwood $9,060,169 $9,326,777 $7,899,544 87.19 -$266,608 -$8,166,152
211 Alcorn State $8,926,041 $6,042,709 $7,501,398 84.04 $2,883,332 -$4,618,066
212
Texas-Pan
American $8,844,062 $8,638,656 $7,224,283 81.69 $205,406 -$7,018,877
213 Southern $8,766,440 $7,687,619 $4,746,048 54.14 $1,078,821 -$3,667,227
214
Wisconsin-Green
Bay $8,196,869 $8,075,346 $4,902,120 59.8 $121,523 -$4,780,597
215
Southern Illinois
Edwardsville $8,018,927 $7,718,661 $6,484,138 80.86 $300,266 -$6,183,872
216
Indiana-Purdue
Fort Wayne $7,878,962 $7,546,796 $6,104,406 77.48 $332,166 -$5,772,240
217 Savannah State $7,505,272 $6,592,913 $5,674,950 75.61 $912,359 -$4,762,591
218 Alabama A&M $7,349,658 $7,349,658 $5,396,160 73.42 $0 -$5,396,160
219
Indiana-Purdue
Indianapolis $7,308,438 $7,277,608 $6,443,593 88.17 $30,830 -$6,412,763
220
Arkansas-Pine
Bluff $7,096,374 $7,318,876 $5,506,001 77.59 -$222,502 -$5,728,503
221 Nicholls State $6,962,130 $6,955,658 $4,221,728 60.64 $6,472 -$4,215,256
222
South Carolina
Upstate $6,954,621 $7,325,865 $6,020,233 86.56 -$371,244 -$6,391,477
223 Chicago State $6,617,545 $5,664,694 $6,228,485 94.12 $952,851 -$5,275,634
224 Jackson State $6,411,728 $6,411,728 $3,759,290 58.63 $0 -$3,759,290
225 Grambling State $6,276,068 $7,846,537 $3,633,769 57.9 -$1,570,469 -$5,204,238
226
North Carolina
Asheville $5,774,228 $5,894,394 $4,368,909 75.66 -$120,166 -$4,489,075
227
Maryland-Eastern
Shore $5,332,206 $5,332,206 $4,706,375 88.26 $0 -$4,706,375
228
Mississippi Valley
State $4,368,954 $4,368,954 $2,821,442 64.58 $0 -$2,821,442
229 New Orleans $4,266,761 $4,266,760 $2,958,137 69.33 $1 -$2,958,136
230 Coppin State $3,445,532 $3,678,094 $2,609,264 75.73 -$232,562 -$2,841,826

Abstract (if available)

Abstract University athletic programs are one of the most visible components of a university, yet also one of the least studied. Much of the research is focused on big-time athletic programs, on economic value and value to the athletes as individuals. This study examined the value of athletics as perceived by university administrators at smaller universities and colleges. Three research questions guided the study: What are the primary values that university administrators at smaller institutions identify for collegiate athletic programs? What differences do university administrators recognize between large university athletic programs and smaller university programs? And, is there an academic benefit for all students, not just athletes, in attending a college where athletic programs are present? The final research question prompted the hypothesis: there is a positive effect on the academic performance of undergraduate students when higher education institutions host athletic programs and a higher percentage of athletes will correlate with improved 6-year graduation rates. ❧ The data indicate that the presence of athletics at a university can increase 6-year graduation rates and support a positive finding for the hypothesis. An explanatory sequential mixed-methods study was utilized to allow for the creation of quantitative research that can be explained through qualitative analysis of interviews. A test for a correlation between the percentage of athletes in an undergraduate population and the university’s 6-year graduation rate was conducted and tested for correlation and significance. Institutions were divided according to Carnegie classifications for school sizing. Data analysis showed medium and small correlations, according to Pearson r tests, for small, medium, and large-sized institutions. Very small institutions did not show a correlation. The highest correlation (r = .439) was found in medium-sized schools with a regression coefficient of β = 2.27.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The sport of learning: the effect of college athletes' perception of identity on approach to learning

PDF

Engagement of staff within student-athlete academic services

PDF

The Bridge Program and underrepresented Latino students: an evaluation study

PDF

Exploring the academic success of black male former student-athletes and their experiences with academic support upon re-entry to college

PDF

Effective services provided to community college student-athletes: a gap analysis

PDF

Developing a student athlete mentoring program to improve college readiness at a rural Hawaii public high school

PDF

Persistence interventions for Native Hawaiian students

PDF

Improving college graduation rates: a smarter plan

PDF

Exploratory study on Race to the Top schools and the impact a school principal has on a school’s academic performance

PDF

Examining the experiences of high school counselors when advising student athletes on the NCAA college going process

PDF

African American airmen and the CCAF degree: a mixed methods study conducted on joint base Pearl Harbor-Hickam

PDF

The impact of academic support services on Division I student-athletes' college degree completion

PDF

Coaching to increase retention in online degree completion programs

PDF

The effects of accreditation on the passing rates of the California bar exam

PDF

Teacher perception of the implementation of the educator effectiveness system

PDF

Evaluating the needs of trainers in implementing a school-wide meditation program

PDF

Latino/a college student-athletes: Influences on recruitment, enrollment and degree completion

PDF

Evaluating the effects of diversity courses and student diversity experiences on undergraduate students' democratic values at a private urban research institution

PDF

A study of Pacific Islander scholarship football players and their institutional experience in higher education

PDF

Student-athletes and leadership: a case study of the impact of collegiate athletics on social change behavior and leadership development

Asset Metadata

Creator Dooley, David L. (author)

Core Title Defining values in smaller college athletic programs: athletics effect on graduation rates

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 02/10/2017

Defense Date 04/29/2016

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag academics,athlete,athletic,Athletics,college,GPA,graduation rate,graduation rates,NCAA,OAI-PMH Harvest,Sport,Sports,University,value of athlete,value of athletics,value of sport,value of sports

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Picus, Lawrence (committee chair), Datta, Monique (committee member), Tobey, Patricia (committee member)

Creator Email davdooley@gmail.com,ddooley@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-334953

Unique identifier UC11257950

Identifier etd-DooleyDavi-5041.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-334953 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-DooleyDavi-5041.pdf

Dmrecord 334953

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Dooley, David L.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA