Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Alumni student -athletes' attitudes towards educational philanthropy
(USC Thesis Other)
Alumni student -athletes' attitudes towards educational philanthropy
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
ALUMNI STUDENT-ATHLETES’ ATTITUDES TOWARDS EDUCATIONAL
PHILANTHROPY
by
Camille Elizabeth Filardo
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
December 2003
Copyright 2003 Camille Elizabeth Filardo
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3133266
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
®
UMI
UMI Microform 3133266
Copyright 2004 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Los Angeles, California 90089-0031
This dissertation written by
C a y v \ \ \ U l ^ \ a x d ^ _____________
u n d er the discretion of h C*'* D issertation Com m ittee,
and approved by all m em bers of the C om m ittee, has
been presented to and accepted by the Faculty of the
Rossier School of E ducation in partial fulfillm ent of the
requirem ents for the degree of
Doctor of Education
u
D issertation Com m ittee
/ s£AAaJ
Chairperson
u b LiU - / ) /kiUKi
Date^
Dean
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
It is without hesitation that I thank Linda Serra Hagedom for her continual
support and encouragement to complete this dissertation. Her unyielding enthusiasm
and care afforded me the opportunity to complete this challenge.
To my parents, I cannot express the importance of your support and love
throughout this journey. It was my father who began to whisper the possibility into
my ear and my mother who continued to echo the sentiments. Together, their belief
and encouragement provided me the shoulders to stand on so I could see my future.
To Richard Lapchick and his staff who afforded me the audience and the
opportunity to present my dissertation at his national conference the National
Consortium for Athletics and Academics, thank you.
To Evans Roderick, the world’s best mentor, greatest role model and true
friend, who introduced me to my a career I am passionate about and believe in, thank
you.
To my dear friend Nina Saadat, who opened her house to me on countless
occasions to ease the commute from San Luis Obispo to Irvine every other weekend.
To family and friends, and students who continually encouraged, prodded
and pleaded with me to complete my journey, I thank you.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................ii
List of Tables.................................................................................................................... vi
Abstract.............................................................................................................................vii
INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY...............................................................................1
Background of the Problem.....................................................................2
Purpose of the Study.................................................................................3
Research Question....................................................................................3
Hypotheses................................................................................................ 3
Significance of the Problem.....................................................................4
Assumptions............................................................................................. 4
Limitations................................................................................................ 4
Delimitations of Terms............................................................................ 5
Definition of Terms..................................................................................5
Organization of the Study........................................................................ 7
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE..................................................................................8
Introduction............................................................................................... 8
Literature Review.....................................................................................9
The NCAA...............................................................................................10
Birth of the NCAA..................................................................................10
Purpose of the NCAA.............................................................................11
NCAA BYLAWS................................................................................... 14
History of Educational Philanthropy....................................................21
Voluntary Support for Higher Education.............................................39
The Effect of Athletic Success on Alumni Donations........................ 46
The Student-Athlete as an Alumni....................................................... 51
General Giving Percentage Rates......................................................... 52
Examples of some who do Give........................................................... 53
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Introduction............................................................................................. 57
Research Questions.................................................................................58
Research Design.....................................................................................58
iii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Population and Sample................................................................................................... 58
Instrumentation.......................................................................................59
Pilot Study.............................................................................................. 60
Data Collection.......................................................................................60
Data Analysis..........................................................................................61
Qualitative Findings Appendix..............................................................61
ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS...........................................................................................63
Alumni Student-Athlete Responses...................................................... 63
Frequency Distributions......................................................................... 63
Descriptives............................................................................................ 67
Charitable Donations............................................................................. 69
Section 1................................................................................................. 69
Crosstabulations for Givers and Nongivers..........................................69
Grade Point Average and Giving Behavior..........................................69
Division of Collegiate Athletic Competition and Giving Behavior...70
SECTION 2............................................................................................ 70
SECTION 3............................................................................................ 71
SECTION 4 ............................................................................................ 73
Givers......................................................................................................74
Non Givers............................................................................................. 74
DISCUSSION................................................................................................................. 75
Conclusions............................................................................................ 80
Recommendations..................................................................................81
References........................................................................................................................82
Appendices
A. QUESTIONNAIRE........................................................................................... 87
B. NCAA CONSTITUTION.................................................................................89
C. PURPOSE OF THE NCAA............................................................................. 90
D. NCAA BYLAW................................................................................................ 91
14.3.1.1 Qualifier............................................................................................... 91
14.2.1 Five-Year Rule........................................................................................ 92
2.0 Grade Point Average....................................................................................92
14.01.1 Institutional Responsibility..................................................................93
14.01.2 Academic Status....................................................................................93
14.01.2.1 Good Academic Standing.................................................................93
14.4.3.2 Fulfillment of Percentage of Degree requirements...........................94
14.4.3.1.3 Hours Earned during Regular Academic Year............................... 95
E. QUESTION #7 and #8 OPEN ENDED RESPONSES................................... 96
iv
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
F. OPEN ENDED RESPONSES OF GIVERS AND NON-GIVERS.............. 98
Givers.................................................................................................... 98
Non-Givers............................................................................................98
Others.....................................................................................................99
v
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 : Current Stadium Renovation Expenses 34
Table 2: University of Texas Athletics Dept. Revenue 36
Table 3: Rank of College Athletic Budgets 37
Table 4: Voluntary Support for Higher Education 39
Table 5: General Giving Percentage Rates 52
Table 6: Demographic Characteristics 63
Table 7: Marital Status and Giving Behavior 66
Table 8: Income Levels and Giving Behavior 66
Table 9: Educational Level and Giving Behavior 66
Table 10: Sport and Giving Behavior 67
Table 11: Selection and Percentage 67
Table 12: Open Ended Responses 68
Table 13: Selection 68
Table 14: Open-Ended Responses 68
Table 15: Grade Point Average 69
Table 16: Division IA Collegiate Athletic Competition and Giving Behavior 70
Table 17: Future Giving Possibilities 71
Table 18: Reasons for Giving to Alma Mater 72
Table 19: Reasons Alumni Student-Athletes do not Give Back to Their Alma Maters 74
vi
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ABSTRACT
American higher education faces many challenges, such as financial barriers
and the lack of capital (Miller, 1993). The lack of capital is forcing colleges to
search for alternative funding through new fund raising programs (Cambel, 1982,
McMillen, 1989, Miller, 1989 & 1993, Paton, 1982, Leslie & Ramey, G. 1988, Barr,
N, 1993, Miller, M. 1993, Harrison et al 1995, Baade & Sundberg 1996, Cook,
Lasher, 1996, Desruisseaux, P. 1999, Wong, B.K., Bodnovich, T.A., Lai, VS-K,
2000, Shulman, Bowden, 2001, S. Gerking 2000). In fact, “Academic fund raising
has continued to grow in response to higher education institution’s search for
alternative funding” (Miller, 1993). As a result, institutions of higher education have
turned to collegiate athletics to produce the necessary funding for the institution to
meet their financial debts producing an unending cycle of fundraising. Colleges are
spending enormous amounts of money on college athletics betting that they will
receive financial gains from television contracts and advertising. Extravagant
recruiting budgets, salaries of coaches, arenas that some may describe as
extravagant, and travel expenses are fueling the collegiate cyclical fundraising
business. All of this begs the question, who is funding these collegiate endeavors?
With the continual lessening of government funding and corporate sponsors, who
then is left to provide collegiate fundraising dollars? Institutions across the country
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
have targeted one of the largest populations of potential donors: alumni student-
athletes.
This dissertation has been designed to clarify two ideas, one, why alumni
student-athletes do not give back to their alma mater and of those who do give back,
why do they give to their alma mater. After collecting data from former student-
athletes, it was determined that NCAA Division I student-athletes are most likely to
give back as well as those who excelled in the academic arena despite their level of
income.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
Government financial restrictions are making it more difficult to finance
higher education (Cambel, 1982, McMillen, 1989, Miller, 1989 & 1993, Paton, 1982,
Leslie & Ramey, G. 1988, Barr, N, 1993, Miller, M. 1993, Harrison et al 1995,
Baade & Sundberg 1996, Cook, Lasher, 1996, Desruisseaux, P. 1999, Shulman,
Bowden, 2001, S. Gerking 2000). With limited governmental spending, institutions
of higher education are being forced to find other means of financial support. The
increased demands of maintaining academic excellence and the recruitment of future
students, has forced colleges to find new revenue sources. Many colleges and
universities have turned toward their athletic departments anticipating the gain of
financial support via ticket and skybox sales, often forcing the construction and
renovations of large football stadiums. The idea is that if a college is able to create a
winning athletic program, it is then able to reap financial rewards.
Universities have continually sought outside financial support from various
types of donors. Recently, institutions have become more sophisticated in targeting
specific donors based on databases of donor behaviors and profiles. These donor
behaviors and profiles have been scrutinized with the intention of being the driving
force for many financial solicitations. These donations have reinforced to
fundraisers that mastering the dominant behaviors of one’s solicitors will better
enable a donation. This tactic generates a list of donors yet does not explain to the
1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
solicitor why the donation is being made? Knowing why a donation is being made
may generate more and better solicitations.
According to Tsiotsou (1998), those who have psychological attachments to
their alma mater are more likely to financially contribute to their higher educational
institutions. Based on the role of the collegiate student-athlete who is actively
involved in college athletics, it would be assumed that this population would be more
likely to make financial donations to their university. Hence the question, why are
not more student athletes giving back to their alma maters?
Background of the Problem
This research is focused on understanding the relationship between alumni
student-athletes and their attitude towards philanthropy. Due to the limitations of
government funding for higher education, colleges and universities are responsible
for financing their institutions’ educational needs. These needs are financially
supported by both public and private sources. Most recently, funding for higher
education has become associated with large corporations and athletic departments.
Colleges are building larger, luxurious stadiums to entice multi-million-dollar
donations from corporations. Meanwhile, collegiate athletes are benefiting from
these donations, reaping the benefits of modem stadiums, study halls, weight rooms,
academic assistance, free tuition, boarding and books. It is expected that former
athletes would appreciate the benefits they received and be willing to supply
financial gifts allowing future athletes to benefit from student-athlete funding. Yet,
2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
few alumni student-athletes actually provide financial contributions to their former
universities.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to better understand the financial giving behavior of
former collegiate student-athletes.
Research Questions
1. What is the relationship between alumni student-athletes and
educational philanthropy?
2. Of those who do give back, why do they give to their alma mater?
Hypotheses
1. There exists a negative relationship between alumni student-athletes
and educational philanthropy.
2. Those student-athletes who support their alma maters had a positive
athletic experience.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Significance of the Problem
This study will enable institutions of higher education to better identify student-
athletes’ financial giving behavior. Based on aforementioned research, alumni
donations have been studied that enabled fundraisers to better target the giving
population, assuring donations. Using this research has proven to be unfruitful when
asking alumni student-athletes for donations. Regardless of the fact that alumni
student-athletes received an education and may have even received financial support
from the institution in order to obtain their education, most former student-athletes
do not feel obligated to give back.
Assumptions
For this study, the following assumptions are made:
1. The measures are reliable and valid indicators of the constructs to be studied
2. The data will be accurately recorded and analyzed.
3. The subjects will be assessed in a quiet, controlled atmosphere.
4. The subjects will respond to the best of their ability.
5. The purposes, processes, and elements of the framework studied have a degree of
applicability and generalizability to colleges and universities throughout the country.
6.. .The research, data gathering, and findings and conclusions of the study represent
“good research.”
Limitations
1. This study is limited to subjects who agreed to participate voluntarily.
2. All subjects were professionally involved in collegiate athletics at some level.
4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3. The data is limited to the number of subjects surveyed and the amount of time
available to conduct this study.
4. Validity of this study is limited to the reliability of the instruments used.
Delimitations
The study will confine itself to surveying former collegiate athletes. The
study will focus on former collegiate athletes’ experiences, attitudes, and overall
expectations of college. The subjects in this study have chosen to pursue collegiate
athletics as aprofessional livelihood, therefore, limiting their professional
experiences outside the realm of higher education. In addition, the study will
evaluate personal influences toward philanthropy. Only former collegiate athletes
will be included in the study.
Definition of Terms
In the context of this study, the following definitions were used.
Alumni athlete donor: Former collegiate athlete who has donated funds or other
valuable merchandise to his/her alma mater.
Alumni athlete non-donor: Former collegiate athlete who has not donated funds or
other valuable merchandise to his/her alma mater.
Alumni student-athlete: Graduate of an institution who participated in at least one
year of collegiate competition.
Captial: financial asset
COA: the Commission on Athletics that governs California Community Colleges
5
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Corporate Sponsorship: A financial donation made by a corporation with an
athletic department in exchange for some form of advertisement
Educational Philanthropy: a financial donation specifically directed toward an
institution of higher education.
Giving: Any form of a financial donation given to a college or university.
Grant in aid: Money allotted to students either in the form of a grant or loan to pay
for college expenses.
IAAUS: Intercollegiate Athletic Association of the United States
Intramurals: College athletic competitions that involve the general student
population.
NCAA: National Collegiate Association of Athletics
NAIA: National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics
Partial Scholarship Athlete: Student-athlete who receives partial payment of
tuition, room and/or board.
Revenue Sport: Football, basketball, baseball or any sport that produces income for
an institution of higher education.
Scholarship Athlete: Student-athlete who receives full payment of tuition, room
and board.
Student-Athlete: College student who participates and competes in athletic
competitions within a nationally recognized governed athletic conference.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Organization of the Study
Chapter one of the study presents the introduction, the statement of the
problem, the purpose of the study, the questions to be answered, the significance of
the study, the definitions of terms, the assumptions, limitations, delimitations, and
the organization of the study.
Chapter two is a review of recent literature.
Chapter three presents the methodology used in the study, including a
description and rationale of the sample, the data collection procedures, a description
of instrument development and the methods of analysis of the data.
Chapter four organizes the collected data.
Chapter five interprets the data collected in Chapter Four. This chapter also
provides a summary of the study’s findings and offers suggestions for future research
in this area of study.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
Collegiate athletics is a monumental part of American Culture. Collegiate
athletics encompasses television contracts, mass marketing schemes, and travel. It
has all the characteristics of professional athletic coordination without the necessity
of paying the athletes. The size and power of athletics is forcing colleges to become
market savvy to compete with other institutions fighting for the same dollar,
enrollment size, and athletic prowess. Collegiate athletics has become so entrenched
in American culture that the growing demand to supply such entertainment is
causing institutions financial stress, and adding to the financial burdens of higher
education. Some of these American higher education burdens are directly related to
financial barriers and the lack of capital (Miller, 1993). Fund raising programs have
taken on the role of replacing reduced or lost capital (Cambel, 1982; McMillen,
1989, Miller, 1989 & 1993, Paton, 1982, Leslie & Ramey, G. 1988, Barr, N, 1993,
Miller, M. 1993, Harrison et al 1995, Baade & Sundberg 1996, Cook, Lasher, 1996,
Desruisseaux, P. 1999, Wong, B.K., Bodnovich, T.A., Lai, VS-K, 2000, Shulman,
Bowden, 2001, S. Gerking 2000). In response to searching for alternative funding,
higher education has become astute in fund raising. “Academic fundraising has
8
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
continued to grow in response to higher education institutions’ search for alternative
funding” (Miller, 1993).
Literature Review
Many controversial articles (Cantor & Prentice, 1996; Shulman & Bowen,
2001; Koch, 1983; Becker, et. al, 1986; Cullen, 1991) address the negative aspects of
collegiate athletics, yet little has been written regarding the intricacies of being a
collegiate athletic participant. The typical student-athlete on today’s campus
undertakes a multi-faceted commitment. He/she is obligated to achieve goals
beyond those met by the average student. He/she must declare a major field of study
and participate in collegiate athletics. The student-athlete is not only accountable to
himself and family, but also to faculty, coaches, teammates and peers while
simultaneously attempting to meet stringent physical, social, and emotional demands
of academia and sport.
He/she must be a skillful time manager organizing class schedules, study
sessions, and team competitions while striving to maintain grades and scholarships
without sacrificing team performance. Within the constraints of studying in an
academic program he/she must also memorize plays, attend practice sessions, study
film, meet weight lifting requirements, travel off campus, and maintain rigorous
physical fitness regimens. “There is no question that athletes are under significantly
greater time pressure than are other students” (Prentice, 1997, p. 2 ).
“The typical athlete spends upward of 20 hours a week on his or her sport, has a
daunting travel schedule during the in-season, and trains all year round. As a result,
9
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
athletic participation interferes with the other goals that students pursue while in
college, most obvious of which is the goal of succeeding academically” (Cantor &
Prentice, 1996, p.6). With this time demanding schedule, student-athletes are often
forced to make sacrifices, including concessions in the areas of academics. In
summary, the student-athlete is working toward achieving dual goals, balancing
academic and athletic excellence.
The NCAA
Collegiate athletics are regulated by bylaws and regulations. Participation in
intercollegiate athletics requires adherence to multiple sets of rules, contingent upon
the university, the college athletic association, and the division. For example, USC
Athletics must be in accordance with USC’s academic integrity as well as the Pac 10
and NCAA Division I bylaws. There are many governing bodies for collegiate
athletics; the Commission on Athletics (COA) which governs California Community
Colleges, the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) which
primarily is made up of small religiously affiliated institutions and the National
Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) which is the largest collegiate athletic
governing body consisting of more than 1,000 member institutions.
Birth o f the NCAA
President Theodore Roosevelt founded the Intercollegiate Athletic
Association of the United States (IAAUS) on October 16, 1905. The mission of
IAAUS was to provide safer college football competitions and prevent unnecessary
injuries and deaths. President Roosevelt began this crusade during a meeting at the
10
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
White House with the presidents of Harvard, Yale and Princeton (Schulman &
Bowen 2001). During this meeting, football rules and regulations were created to
limit injuries. This meeting marked the beginning of the NCAA. In fact, it was not
until 1910 that IAAUS was renamed the National Collegiate Athletic Association
(NCAA). With the rapid growth and support of collegiate sports, the NCAA
established a national headquarters in Kansas City, Missouri in 1951, lead by Walter
Byers. As of 1991, the NCAA headquarters moved to Indianapolis, Indiana with a
staff of approximately 300 persons.
Purpose o f the NCAA
The purpose of the NCAA is to function as a regulatory commission of
sports, conduct, and competition providing quality control of collegiate athletics
within the framework of each institution. The NCAA is a governing body
responsible for the conduct and financial obligations for institutions competing in
three different levels of athletics.
The competitive athletics programs of member institutions are designed to be
a vital part of the educational system. A basic purpose of this Association is to
maintain intercollegiate athletics as an integral part of the educational program and
the athlete as an integral part of the student body and, by so doing, retain a clear line
11
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
of demarcation between intercollegiate athletics and professional sports (NCAA
Bylaw 1.3.1, NCAA Manual, 2002. p.l).
The NCAA serves as a guide and leader of bylaws in hopes of regulating
athletic opportunities for college students with fairness and equity in mind. Its eight
statements of purpose may be found in Appendix C, Purpose of the NCAA.
Divisions I. II. and III.
In 1970, with its growing size, the NCAA chose to subdivide into three
competitive Membership Divisions. Institutions were placed into a Division based
on certain criteria, such as, size, financially stability, and guaranteed competition
attendance size. Dividing institutions into Divisions allows the NCAA to provide
better quality control and enable equality among institutions of all sizes. To date,
there are 1,005 institutions of higher education who participate in the NCAA, by
division, Division I 325, Division II 270, Division III 410 (NCAA News, October
14, 2002, p.2).
Division I.
Division I is considered the most elite level of collegiate athletic competition.
At this level of athletic competition, academic standards are rigorous. It is mandated
by the NCAA that Division I athletic programs provide additional academic
resources for its student-athletes (NCAA 2002 Manual, Bylaw 14, pages 105-144).
The NCAA also provides all Division I institutions with an Academic Enhancement
12
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Fund. This fund is designed to ensure a university’s commitment and ability to
provide adequate academic support for student-athletes.
“ A total of $15.9 million is allocated for enhancement of academic-support
programs for student-athletes at Division I institutions. A payment of
$50,000 is sent in laite June to each Division I institution. There are no
specific guidelines for the use of these academic-enhancement monies, other
than the funds may not be used for scholarships for fifth-year student-athletes
who have exhausted eligibility, for summer school tuition, or for the purchase
of course books. Institutions can utilize the funds for new or existing
student-athlete academic programs and services. For research purposes only,
institutions report on how the funds were used to enhance their academic
programs and services for student-athletes. Among the common uses are
tutorial services, equipment (e.g. computer), supplies and additional
personnel (2000-2001 NCAA Revenue Distribution Plan, Part 1, page 1).
In addition to financial contributions, the NCAA also regulates the number of
sports that are available per institution per year. NCAA Division I institutions must
adhere to sponsoring a minimum of seven sports for both men and women. These 14
sporting opportunities must be represented each sport season. For example, football
would represent the fall semester, whereas baseball would represent the spring
semester. Division I-A schools (the largest programs) have strict attendance as well
as minimum home contest rules for their athletic programs. Divisions I-AA (smaller
programs) have lesser restraints. There are 325 Division I institutions in the United
States.
Division II.
Division II institutions are required to sponsor a minimum of four sports
offering a minimum of two sports for each gender. The sports offered must be
equally represented by each gender during each school session. Division II athletics
differs from Division I athletics in that there are no attendance policy requirements
and these institutions are financially restricted in their disbursement of scholarship
13
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
monies. In addition, the NCAA does not mandate academic support for Division II
institutions nor are the academic regulations as demanding.
Division III.
Division III is considered the purest of athletic divisions since no student-
athlete is provided scholarship money based on athletic talent. Division III
institutions must offer a minimum of four sports for both men and women, two of
which must be team sports for each gender. Division III athletics provides students
financial assistance based on need and not athletic ability. Again, the NCAA does
not mandate academic regulations nor provide financial enhancement funds for
Division III athletics based on the belief that this division is less competitive and
time intensive for the student-athlete.
NCAA BYLAWS
Once the NCAA has categorized each institution into a respective Division, it
mandates that each institution comply with its division’s specific designated bylaws.
These bylaws are published annually in a comprehensive governing manual. This
division specific manual explicitly outlines each bylaw and rule that governs NCAA
collegiate athletic competition, eligibility, and pertinent rules. An example of the
manual’s intensity can be demonstrated via Article 14 entitled “Eligibility: Academic
General Requirements” and that has 322 subcategories. To better demonstrate the
intensity and specificity of the NCAA Manual, freshman eligibility restraints will be
presented. There are five basic rules that are continuously evaluated to measure
14
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
academic eligibility for collegiate athletics. These rules, determining initial
eligibility, address length of athletic participation, minimum required grade point
average, matriculation percentages and summer school limitations. These rules can
all be found under article 14.4.4.3. located in Appendix F, NCAA Bylaw 14.
The framework and intensity of the NCAA’s regulations of collegiate
athletics attempts to provide an equal treatment of student-athletes and institutions
across the United States. These bylaws are developed with the intention of
benefiting the institution as well as the student-athlete. The rewards of a student
athlete are many; as a team participant he/she often develops transferable skills such
as discipline, leadership, cooperation and persistence. He/she usually develops deep
ties with other team members and learns goal-oriented skills. As a team player
he/she develops social skills and builds life long friendships. He/she experiences
with teammates the joys and agonies of defeat that in turn enhance social and
emotional development. “Athletic participation provides structure to students’ lives,
gives them an opportunity for personal achievement, creates a set of shared
experiences and thereby strengthens their ties to teammates and coaches, and gives
them a real connection to the culture and traditions of their institution (Cantor &
Prentice, 1996, page 4).
As the significance of intercollegiate athletics has increased over the past few
years (Koch, 1983) so “has the intensity of interest among college and university
administrators in gaining greater institutional control over intercollegiate athletic
programs” (Becker, et al, 1987, p.431). Considering that college athletics is a major
15
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
force in higher education, administrative responsibility and accountability continue
to be some of the major issues facing today’s institutions.
The justification of collegiate athletics can often be cited in the institution’s
mission statement. Mission statements vary from college to college depending on an
institution’s purpose and intent. The mission statement outlines a school’s particular
interest and clarifies its educational goals, often professing its commitment to the
total development of its students. College mission statements often mirror the
commitments expressed by the NCAA such as life-long-leaming, community
service, and a commitment to diversity. Together, the university and the NCAA
embrace similar values. Therefore, “how certain activities fit within an institution
depend, of course, on how-and if- the institutional mission is defined” (Shulman &
Bowen, 2001, p. 2).
Intercollegiate athletics can be assessed, then, in terms of its direct effects on
the core educational mission of a college or university. It can also be judged
in terms of its implication on campus ethos, alumni/ae loyalty, and
institutional reputation (Shulman & Bowen, 2001, p.5).
There exists a type of inter-marriage between a college’s mission statement
and its athletic offerings. In fact, mission statements justify the existence of athletics
in higher education. Shulman and Bowen (2001) offer three rationales for athletics
being part of a collegiate mission statement. The authors suggest that this
justification can be rationalized by acknowledging that sport can be the core
16
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
educational mission and it can provide community-building opportunities while
producing financial security.
Beyond the financial justification for collegiate athletics are immeasurable
benefits. Moffatt (1991) addressed the relevance and educational value of “outside
the classroom” experiences.
In the late nineteenth century American undergraduates themselves invented
the youth culture of outside-the-classroom-college, naming it ‘college life’
and passing it down to future student generations (Moffatt, 1991, p.44).
For Moffatt (1991), assessing the learning process outside of the classroom is
vital. Moffatt further explained that the “outside of the classroom learning” is rarely
researched; and to ignore this maturation process is to ignore the development of
college age students.
College is also about what goes on outside the classroom, among the students
with no adults around. College is about being on your own, about autonomy,
about freedom from the authority of adults, however benign their intentions.
And last but far from least, college is about fun, about unique forms of peer-
group fun before, in student conceptions, the grayer actualities of adult life in
the real world begins to close in on you (Moffatt, 1991, p.46).
Collegiate athletics provides students opportunities for informal learning
experiences. Athletics is often the vehicle for students and developing skills such
leadership, discipline, communication and transferable listening skills to name a few.
These transferable skills can enhance academic performance. These experiences
have changed considerably over the past ninety-six years since the inception of the
17
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
NCAA. In fact, athletics as a whole has gained greater intensity (Shulman & Bowen,
2001). This intensity has created a need for institutional control.
Institutional control of athletic departments begins with the appointment of
an athletic director. It is the athletic director’s responsibility to orchestrate the
department’s operation. Further institutional control is attained when an athletic
director reports to a college representative such as a vice president, vice provost, or
even a president. To whom an athletic director reports varies according to each
institution and the intensity of its’ institutional control noting “a variety of problems
must be faced in strengthening or altering institutional control of an athletic
program” (Becker et al, 1986) especially in light of the increase of monetary value,
academic integrity, and NCAA infractions (Cullen, 1991, Shulman & Bowen, 2001).
University Presidents are usually assigned this responsibility, however, “few have
the time or inclination to do it effectively” (Becker et al, 1986). Rather, it is
suggested that an athletic board and a faculty representative manage the athletic
department’s overall operation. Becker et al., (1986) addressed this issue by
surveying ninety-seven athletic boards of Division I-A NCAA institutions about their
methods of operation. The results of this survey revealed:
that faculty dominance on boards and frequent meetings lead to increased
influence.. .if it wishes its athletic board were to develop more responsibility
or to exert more influence, is to increase the proportion of faculty on the
board, as well as the board’s total size, lengthen the term of the chair, and
insist that it meet more frequently. (Becker et al, 1986, p. 438).
Becker’s research demonstrates the institutional control simply by having the
university involved with daily athletic department operations. The infrastructure of
18
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
collegiate athletics has undergone numerous structural as well as administrative
changes over the years. “During the early days of college athletics, the student-
athlete contributed actively to all phases of administration and control” (Renick,
1974). Being that student-athletes staff the athletic department, author Renick
(1974) questions why they have not been involved in administrative decisions that
impact their collegiate experience.
If athletics are to be ‘an integral part’ of college, and if students are actively
involved in the decision-making process of other aspects of college life,
would it be reasonable for the student-athlete to be an active participant in the
making of decisions in athletics? (Renick, 1974, p.546)
Renick (1974) declares, “there is little evidence of student participation in the
control of athletics.” (p.547). Rather, collegiate athletics is confined to the obedient
compliance of NCAA bylaws that govern collegiate athletic programs throughout the
nation. The NCAA, claims to provide quality athletic programs for student-athletes
and the potential for these students to develop leadership qualities. However, Renick
(1974) notes the lack of commitment by the NCAA to provide leadership specific
opportunities for student-athletes.
It is difficult to establish the credibility of ‘athletics for athletes’ or ‘the
development of educational leadership.’ There is simply no provision and
very little opportunity for the student athlete to go beyond the role of a
performer.” The student-athlete has very few rights and must conform to the
existing system if he wishes to participate in intercollegiate athletics (Renick,
1974, p.548).
Educational leadership opportunities may enhance cohesive team building
among administration and student-athletes; however, violations are prevalent. Since
the power of control is at the discretion of each institution, the responsibility to self-
19
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
report violations is based on the honor system. If institutions neglect their
responsibility it permits collegiate athletics to become a fertile environment for
scandal. Such scandalous environments are evident in the repeated infractions
published by the NCAA. These infractions include, but are not limited to, extra
benefits given to student-athletes via coaches, boosters, and staff. An example of
these infractions is noted by Cullen et al (1990), which studied such abuses as drug
use and academic dishonesty coupled with the pressure to win.“Generally coaches
supported proposals to tighten regulations within university 70 percent of the
coaches even favored the policy of making it a criminal offense to engage in
schemes in which student-athletes are given a pay-off’ (Cullen et al, 1990, p.56).
This study revealed the desire of coaches to comply with NCAA Bylaws in
spite of intense pressures. Cullen (1990) notes that the intensity college coaches
experience and the seriousness in which they attribute to their profession. Coaches
are requesting the tightening of regulations with the anticipation that colleges across
the board will comply. The seriousness of this trend is apparent in the coaches desire
to implement criminal punishment as a form of alignment. Although inappropriate
activity has increased, it is neither uniform nor practiced at every institution. The
vast majority of coaches operate lawfully and with concern for the benefit of the
student athlete. Further, the vast majority of universities and colleges have never had
20
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
a problem in this area. As with most infractions and problems, the minority creates
the illusion that all institutions follow the practice.
Collegiate athletics is a practice that is growing in size and importance. It is
strongly embedded in American culture as a source for entertainment and
institutional pride. Athletics is struggling to find an all-inclusive process. In
response, athletic departments are forced to become “bigger and stronger” financially
to accommodate larger numbers of students, faculty, staff and fans. Stadiums are
growing, recruiting has become more sophisticated, and television contracts are more
lucrative (Opdyke, 2000). Money is driving college athletics and competition is
forcing fundraising. Fundraising sources, however, are limited forcing institutions to
target their alumni population (Desruisseaux, 1999). Higher education has been
drenched in philanthropy since its’ beginning. In fact, educational philanthropy has
served as the beacon of expanding the quality of higher education in this country
(Mercer 1996, Miller 1993). It has enabled this country to expand its’ resources and
provide students with the latest technological advances, exposing Americans to vast
opportunities for attaining academic excellence.
History o f Educational Philanthropy
Understanding the history of educational philanthropy enables one to discern
the development of higher education. The first citing of philanthropy can be traced
to 4000 B.C. with Egypt’s Book of the Dead (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990; Miller,
1993). The Book of the Dead represents donations that were made in hopes of
sustaining religious and cultural rituals. In addition, authorities claim that the book
21
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
discloses “primitive trusts” (Miller, 1993). Primitive trusts can be described as a
written promise of a deed in exchange for a reward. For example, The Book of the
Dead recorded “those who fed the hungry and gave water to those who thirsted”
(Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990, p.5). Educational philanthropy began in Greece with
the help of Plato. In fact, it was Plato’s request that upon his passing that the income
generated by his fields be used to support his Academy in Athens. This financial
contribution, an endowment of property, continued to support the Academy for
approximately 900 years (Bakrow, 1961; Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990; Cowley,
1980; Crawford, 1976; Fisher, 1989b; Schuze, 1991). Collegiate educational
philanthropy, according to Miller (1991), did not begin until the twelfth century.
Fund raising for higher education can be traced directly to the opening of the
medieval universities in the twelfth century Europe. As these institutions
opened for the first time and matured, college founders were forced to take
measures to secure the money and resources necessary for the college’s
operation, such as living arrangements for students, book acquisitions, and
faculty incentives. In order to accomplish this early fund raising, the college
founders and “president” (i.e., rector, principal, master, etc.) solicited
businessmen, merchants, and other college supporters for cash and in-kind
contributions. The concept of the chief college faculty member being
responsible for fund-raising was transported to the Colonial Colleges in New
England, and was common at institutions such as the College at Cambridge
[sic] (later Harvard) where head faculty members solicited, in person, gifts of
brick, mortar, food, books, and cash and other valuables (p.4; internal
references omitted) (Cook & Lasher, 1996).
It was Great Britain that solicited gifts to finance the Massachusetts Bay
Colony’s College at Cambridge (Harvard College) serving as the first American
quest of educational philanthropy (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990; Miller 1993).
“Collegiate fund raising in America began in 1640 with Henry Dunster, the first
president of Harvard College” (Cook, 1994). It was not until the early 1800’s that
22
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
women’s colleges became popular as the result of private donations (Brittingham &
Pezzullo, 1990), “including Matthew Vassar’s gift which led to the opening of
Vassar College in 1861, Smith, Wellesly, and Bryn Mawr colleges” (Miller, 1993).
The trend of makings donations dominated this time period for institutions of
higher education ultimately resulting in the renaming of an institution. Examples of
renaming institutions based on donations include:
• Rev. John Harvard gave 779 pounds and a library to the college that was to
be his namesake;
• Elihu Yale’s initial gift to Collegiate School in Connecticut was a modest
shipment of goods from England;
• Nicholas Brown provided $160,000 to the College of Rhode Island;
• Benjamin Franklin’s gift of 1,000 pounds enabled the establishment of the
Pennsylvania college that would later bear his name along with John
Marshall’s;
• Charles Tufts gave land;
• Henry Rutgers gave a bell and $5,000 to the trustees of then Queens College;
• The Colgates gave from their fortunes sufficiently to be honored with a
renaming of Madison University; and
• Walterville College honored Gardner Colby appropriately after he baled it
out of financial disaster.
(Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990, p. 7)
The practice of college naming enabled the affluent the luxury of creating a
history or leaving a legacy. The 1800’s were also the birth of the alumni association
and the prerogative of alumni to participate in their institution’s control. At the turn
of the century, athletics became the focal point of fund raising by providing alumni
pportunities to remain involved in their alma mater, as well as opportunities for
networking students into employment. Often these donations were the result of the
dedication and persistence of “alumni societies and alumni fund raising in North
23
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
America” (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990, p.239). Alumni societies solicited gifts
just as the German institutes did, at the commencement ceremony. For example, “in
1792, Yale began electing a class secretary whose partial role was to keep track of
alumni and invite them back to participate in commencement by giving poems and
orations” (Miller, 1993, p.3).
Alumni involvement began to enhance commencement via governance and
donations. “Alumni were given the right to serve in the representation of college
governance as well as preserve the college traditions through a variety of means such
as student recruitment and legislative lobbying” (Miller, 1993, p.3). In 1820,
Williams College established the first official alumni association , named ‘The
Society of Alumni’ for the sole responsibility of raising money for the college
(Miller, 1993). From there, alumni societies became more creative in their
fundraising expertise and began to “utilize athletic events to increase alumni interest
(Miller, 1993, p.3). During the late 1800’s athletics were used to foster relationships
with students and alums in the hope of raising financial support for given
institutions. It was not until the early 1900’s that the face of educational
philanthropy dramatically changed with the help of John Rockefeller and Andrew
Carnegie. In fact, Rockefeller insisted the donor be “involved in the construction
24
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and revision of academic programs, thus giving some control of program quality to
donors” (Miller, 1993, p.4).
Alumni involvement began to not only help govern the future of a university
but also serve as a resource for funding. Soon after, in 1920, the idea of capital
campaigns became the fury. As a result of one of the first capital campaigns, the
University of Pittsburgh acquired 2 million dollars (Breslow, 1988). Fundraising
gained momentum in 1940 with the disbursement of the G.I. Bill monies.
Throughout the years and with the growth of technology, such as computers and
access to sophisticated databases, “alumni programming became more systematic
and procedural (Miller, 1993). It was not until the Tax Reform Act of 1986 that
fundraising faced its first restraint. In 1986, the incentives for making contributions
were lessened by minimizing the ability to itemize, thus, believing their deductions
not to be worthwhile, fewer people. The intention of this act was to restrict one’s
desire to make a contribution. This action led to more stringent and organized efforts
to raise funds for nonprofit organizations including higher education.
“Philanthropic organizations, including higher education, have had to
reemphasize the techniques and strategies of fund raising to counter federal
efforts which have made giving less financially lucrative” (Miller, 1993, p.4).
Today’ s Fundraising.
Financial strains are not new to higher education. Funding higher education has
evolved into a variety of categories, public donations, public volunteerism, and
private donations, as well as corporate donations and capital campaigns. The
practice of fundraising, a one-time novel idea, now bombards us on a daily
25
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
occurrence via the mail, phone solicitations, or Internet advertisements. Fundraising
has become part of the American culture as well as part of higher education.
Further, “the vast majority of the literature on educational fund raising has
been published during the last 20 years and, due to a preoccupation with
fund-raising methodology, donor motivation, and economic conditions in
higher education, has contributed to the false and widely held impression that
educational fund raising in general and presidential fund raising in particular
are new or at least recent phenomena” (Cook & Lasher, 1996, p.l)
For higher education, fundraising has become a necessity. Acknowledging this
trend has led fundraising to grow in size, medium and culture. In fact, budget cuts
are forcing institutions of higher education to look elsewhere for funding. This new
trend has created a chaotic desperation for institutions to direct their own fundraising
efforts. However, there is no set model for these efforts; rather, each institution has
taken it upon themselves to devise the best strategies to gain the largest financial
donors. “No two institutions seem to go about strategic planning the same way”
(Burdenski, 2000). With billion-dollar campaigns planned by specialized staffs
equipped with the latest computer technology and multi-million-dollar budgets, fund
raising has grown more sophisticated and reached new heights in recent years, (Cook
& Lasher, 1996).
As a result “administrators of public educational institutions have, of necessity,
become keenly aware of the need to further supplement and strengthen the
development efforts within their respective institutions” (Hueston, 1992, p. 18).
In recent years, capital campaigns and other fund-raising drives have become
more frequent, more elaborate and sophisticated, longer in duration, and
larger in size as U.S. colleges and universities have struggled to make ends
meet (Cook & Lasher 1996, p. 33)
26
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Regardless of the selected tactics, Leslie (1988) believes that higher
education is lacking the appropriate information and tracking system. “Indeed, if the
institutions are representative-and there are good reasons to believe they are— U.S.
higher education institutions know almost nothing about their donors” (Leslie, 1988,
p.4). According to Hueston (1992) in recent years, the vast majority of public
assisted universities have found it necessary to actively seek deliberate support from
motivated donors, both individual and corporate, who have desired a common
affiliation with a specific academic institution. Yet, the appropriate identification
and, more importantly, the establishment of a positive, long-term commitment with a
respected donor is often incorrectly identified, misdirected or, in some cases, entirely
overlooked.
The uncertainty of alumni donor behavior has forced fundraisers to
coordinate activities such as, auctions, golf tournaments, and capital campaigns.
Unfortunately, this fundraising methodology continues based on the notion that these
events are rarely evaluated for their effectiveness. In fact, “a quick electronic poll of
40 annual giving directors at sessions of the 1999 Case District V Annual
Conference revealed that only one-third of respondents actually write and evaluate a
plan for their annual fund each year. Even fewer conduct any longer-term strategic
planning” (Burdenski (2000, p. 1). In fact, Burdenski (2000) advocates strategic
planning as a guide and alleviator of stress. In addition to lacking consistency,
institutions of higher education are requiring chief executive and college presidents
to become more involved in fund raising. “However, this important role has
27
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
received limited scholarly or critical interest and, for the most part, remains
misunderstood and ill defined” (Cook & Lasher, 1996, p.33). “A strategic plan can
help to educate both administrators and volunteer leaders about the annual fund’s
role and purpose in the organization as well as show how well it’s performing
(Burdenski, 2000, p.2).
Realizing that few development officers have a strategic plan that includes an
evaluation, one might then recognize Leslie’s (1988) six different areas of fund
raising for higher education to consider: 1) exemplary performer; 2) what worked
and what does not work in fund-raising; 3) whether successful athletic programs
enhance support; 4) how tax laws affect voluntary support; 5) new ideas in nonprofit
research, and; 6) what is in store for the future. Leslie (1988) states that institutions
of higher education must fi rst “build fund-raising traditions through tried and true
strategies” (Leslie, 1988, p.l). Second, there must be a consistent approach to
soliciting and regaining voluntary support. Third, successful athletic programs as
well as positive visual publicity enhance one’s ability to secure charitable donations.
He also believed that the 1982 tax law would create changes and possibly lessen the
amount of people donating to universities acknowledging that governmental
spending can “crowd out” potential donors. As a result, Leslie (1986) realizes that
“much remains to be learned about donor behavior” (p.3). In fact, the Council for
Advancement of Education (CASE) has attempted to build a database including all
higher institutions of learning donor transactions. It is Leslie’s (1986) opinion that
28
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
creating a universal higher education database would enhance the overall knowledge
of donor behavior and predictability.
Another suggestion for soliciting funds for higher education is the Donor-
Advised Fund (Toward, 1999). This approach to fundraising is “increasingly
catching donors’ interest.” Donor-Advised-Funds (DAF) offer the donor flexibility
while providing tax relief incentives. The donor first selects a fund. The donor then
makes a gift to this fund for investment purposes. The donor then selects who the
DAF should benefit and a gift is made on behalf of the fund and left to the recipient’s
discretion. The benefits of making Donor-Advised Fund gifts include “immediate
benefits, long term philanthropic opportunities, and de facto control over giving-all
at a low cost” (Toward, 1996, p.2).
Identifying donors and providing a variety of options better enables a
prospective donor to give. When a donor gives to a university, a school is then better
able to be involved with the latest technology. These efforts then provide students
with the ability to compete in the workforce on an equal playing field in consonance
with the education they receive. Hopefully, these benefits will better enable a
student to excel and ultimately appreciate the opportunities offered by the college
with the desire to reciprocate these benefits to other generations.
With the understanding that collegiate athletics is an expensive component of higher
education, it has quickly become the athletic department’s administrative
responsibility to creatively fund its deficit. Athletic Departments around the country
have followed the current trend of promoting business-related personnel into
29
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
administrative roles, such as Athletic Directors, with the intention of addressing the
unique financial issue facing collegiate Athletic Departments. It is the hope of
thesebusiness people that financial matters within an Athletic Department will
become rectified. For example, in 1998 Rutgers University hired Athletic Director,
Robert E. Mulcahy, for the sole purpose of turning around the university’s $31.5
million dollar financial loss, regardless of the fact that Mulcahy has no prior
experience working in a higher education institution. Philosophies and personal
goals are redirected to meet the financial burden of collegiate athletics erasing the
target of exposing young people to athletic related experiences, friendships, and
building transferable skills. “Marketing has been Mulcahy’s forte, as he has been
responsible for wooing popular athletic events such as the NCAA Final Four to the
Meadowsland. Rutgers officials hope he can similarly turn around its athletic
program, which has suffered through an 0-11 football season and losses of 35.1
million in the last decade” (Kalita, 1998, p.2).
There are tactics that can keep the student-minded-administration from
selling-out to the need for money without losing sight of developing a well-rounded
student-athlete. Realizing the driving force of most Athletic Departments is
fundraising; Fink and Fink-Silvers (1999) suggest that athletic departments become
well versed in the varieties and benefits of Charitable Remainder Trusts (CRT’s).
This article not only demonstrates theadvantages of attaining CRT’s, but also
illustrated how an athletic department can benefit from a CRT. As stated, “the
30
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
average annual expenditures for Division IA intercollegiate athletics well exceed
$17.5 million and 56% of those intercollegiate athletic programs lose money”
(Finket al, 1999, p.35). Literature agrees that “The CRT is among the most flexible
and attractive charitable giving and estate planning strategies available to
individuals,” explaining that both the donor and benefactor benefit. “A CRT is a
legal arrangement in which an individual transfers assets to a trust. Understanding
there are a variety of different trusts as well as CRT’s, the advantage of a CRT is “a)
immediate income tax deduction, b) diversification of assets, c) immediate capital
gains savings and a subsequent increase in lifetime income, d) a reduction in estate
taxes, and e) immediate acknowledgement of the charitable contribution” (Fink et al,
1999, p.37). There are some disadvantages as well. The disadvantages include the
inability to reverse a CRT and the cost of maintenance to name a few. In summary, a
CRT can benefit a donor as well as a beneficiary. It avoids taxes for the donor and
creates a large donation for a beneficiary. A CRT could possibly be used to set up an
endowed scholarship program in a donor’s name, thus assisting an Athletic
Department with lowering its expenses.
Another approach for colleges to secure financial assistance is to create
facilities that will lure talented student-athletes and large crowds. “Build it and they
will come” mentality has taken over collegiate athletics. Why are colleges taking on
financial burdens to increase the number of seats their current football stadiums?
31
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The pressures of winning are no longer the sole driving force for an athletic
department. Rather, the increase of recruiting competition has created a need for
more sophisticated stadiums and facilities to court top athletes.
“If it all seems impossibly lavish, there are reasons. The stadium up grade
generates new revenue, and the school had to build new facilities for its
women’s programs under requirements outlined in Title IX. But perhaps the
most vital reason is recruiting. “We had to stay sexy and attractive to the
kids,” says Ed Goble, the University of Texas, Austin’s vice president of
business affairs. “You’ve got to provide an enhanced experience on campus
to compete for the best kids” (Johnson, 1999, p.4).
To keep in line with today’s athletic advertisements and hype, students are
looking for the latest and best athletic facility when looking at a college rather than
what the institution has to offer them academically. In addition, there are more
professional athletic opportunities for both males and females, which at some level
has shaped the way athletes are approaching their collegiate athletic careers.
The new practice of building larger stadiums with the hope of producing
larger revenues from football has become apparent not exclusively with top
collegiate athletic departments, but small ones as well. The professional leagues that
have demonstrated that increasing seating options increases revenue have
preconditioned the trend. “Universities are in an athletic arms race these days to
draw more fans and woo the best athletes by grafting thousands of new seats-along
with rest rooms, parking garages, locker rooms and ultra-modern training facilities-
onto existing stadiums” (Opdyke, 2000, p.Bl). This expansion movement often
means schools are spending two and three times their annual athletic budget.
32
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A critical issue facing all intercollegiate athletic departments is generating
and maintaining the funding necessary to sustain a nationally competitive
athletic department. One crucial component to the financial vitality of any
athletic department is annual gift dollars. While a variety of individual and
corporate constituents create the membership of any athletic fundraising
organization, a vital group of annual donors is an athletic department’s
alumni athletes. Although alumni athletes represent tremendous potential for
gift dollars to athletic departments, the motive for giving by this select group
have not been explored (Selig, 2000, abstract).
In other words, universities are securing financial dollars to expand athletic
facilities in hopes of increasing income by obtaining athlete superstars. However,
once the facility is in existence, it needs to be staffed and maintained, creating
another financial strain. As stated, it is the desire of the institutions that these
facilities “woo” student-athletes so much so that they attend and give back to their
college experience.Colleges, nationwide, spend billions of dollars recruiting
athletically talented young people with the anticipation of developing winning
athletic programs, ultimately creating financial stability for institutions.
The Texas athletic department’s budget is among the largest in the nation—
$4.12 million for fiscal 1999, which ended in August. Only four universities
had fatter sports wallets that year: Wisconsin ($41.4 million), Tennessee
($45 million), Michigan ($47.6 million), and Ohio State, No.l by far with a
whopping $64.9 million athletics budget (Johnson, 1999, p.3).
There is no doubt that colleges are raising funds to enhance their athletic
department’s exposure and facilities anticipating revenue to enhance the over
33
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
college’s academic offerings. The aforementioned budgets can also be closely tied
to the efforts of and expense of renovating current stadiums.
Table 1: Current Stadium Renovation Expenses_____________________________
SCHOOL COST STADIUM SIZE
(million)
SCHOOL
Penn State
Ohio State
Louisiana State University
Arkansas
North Carolina State
Texas Tech
Virginia
Oregon
COST(million)
95
187
50
85
100
75
86
80
56.8
STADIUM SIZE
104,000
98.000
91,644
70.000
65.000
60.000
60,000
53,800
32,000 SMU
(Opdyke, 2000)
To counterbalance this grandiose-athletic-hype, the NCAA has been forced to
mandate that Division I institutions maintain additional academic assistance such as
study halls, academic advising, and/or tutorial assistance. As a result, Division I
student-athletes receive full scholarships that include but are not limited to, tuition,
room, board, books, and academic support. This does not include television
exposure, first class travel experiences, and most importantly transferable life skills.
In order to support NCAA Division I Athletic Departments, many colleges and
universities are seeking outside financial assistance via grants, fund raising events,
community donations, and corporate sponsors. Corporations provide large
endowments that often result in the naming of a facility fueling the trend for
34
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
stadium-expansion. As a result, collegiate athletic departments are being forced to
compensate head football coaches with outrageous salaries. “Its [LMU’s] new head
football coach, Nick Savan, is one of a growing number of college coaches earning
more than $1 million annually.” In addition to spending millions of dollars for
upgraded stadiums and lucrative head coach’s salaries, the athletic department is
now faced with a large challenge; they must provide equal financial consideration for
their women’s programs. Necessary in order to comply with federal equality
guidelines, the addition of women’s programs generally requires increasing current
financial fundraising campaigns. Justification for this excessive fundraising,
spending, and building is often blamed on the fact that there are few revenue
producing sports. Often football, a revenue producing sport, needs to produce
enough surplus in order to fund the entire Athletic Department. In return, Joe Dean,
LSU’s Athletic Director states that athletic departments are “forced to look for every
possible place to make a dollar just to pay for these massive programs” (Opdyke,
2000, p.B12).
Balancing a multi-million dollar budget can be challenging, especially
finding the funds to finance the department. “Intercollegiate athletic administrators
rely heavily on fundraising efforts to defray the increasing costs of their operations.
35
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In fact, donor giving accounts for 16% of athletic department budgets (Fulks, 1998).
An example of this is revealed in the University of Texas’ Athletic Department
Budget:
Table 2: University Of Texas Athletics Dept. Revenue 1998-1999 45.4 million
Sources Amounts
(millions)
Football revenue 36.1
Donations 17.5
Tickets 10.1
TV 3.9
Marketing/advertisement 1.4
Stadium Suites .8
Concessions .8
Student fees .4
Other Income 1.2
Non-football revenue 9.3
Basketball 6.0
Baseball 1.4
Others Sports 1.9
The burden of fundraising increases in concert with the success of a football
program. Therefore, football success increases the university’s need for financial
support ultimately increases fundraising efforts. A demonstration of football success
and budget requirements are cited in the latter mentioned chart.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3: Rank Of College Athletics Budgets
Rank Institution Budget football rank
(millions) rank
1 Ohio State 64.9 -
2 Michigan 47.6 10
3 Tennessee 45.0 6
4 Wisconsin 41.4 4
5 Texas 41.2 7
6 Florida 39.4 5
7 Kentucky 36.5 8
8 Nebraska 36.0 3
9 Alabama 33.4 8
10 Auburn 33.2 -
13 Florida State 31.0 1
18 Texas AM 27.6 24
20 use 26.7 -
21 Georgia 26.5 16
25 Arkansas 24.2 17
28 Georgia Tech 21.6 20
29 Virginia Tech 20.1 2
(Johnson, 1999)
Understanding the extent and cost of collegiate athletics, athletic departments
have familiarized themselves with the continual duty of seeking private funding.
Acknowledging that alumni are an untapped financial source should lead athletic
departments to this population for donations, more specifically, the donor behavior
of alumni student-athletes. Brittingham and Pezzullo (1990) note that it would be
appropriate for these students to reciprocate because of the benefits they receive
from their scholarships (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990). Therefore, it is
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
recommended that a study be conducted concerning the philanthropic theories of
fully-scholarshiped NCAA Division I student-athletes.
The most popular technique used to determine fundraising success is the
ability to predict donor behavior. Understanding donor predictability affords a
university a target population that is most likely to give based on their relationship to
the university.
“Fund raising programs attempt to inform potential donors of the institution’s
academic quality and need for funds, while at the same time identifying
donors and assessing their potential for future contributions. Thus fund
raising is an effort at building and maintaining philanthropic relationships in
an environment of uncertainty.” (Leslie & Ramey, 1988, p. 120)
Knowledge of a donor’s behavior and motivation is critical to the practicing
fundraiser (Harrison et al, 1995; Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990). Studies regarding
educational philanthropy have focused mostly on the relationships and characteristics
of potential donors, particularly the alumni pool (Harrison, et. al 1995). It is
important to understand the power of the alumni gift. Higher education received
$14.2 billion in gifts in fiscal 1996. Mercer (1996, p. A41) reports that "most gifts
came from alumni and other individuals, who together accounted for about 52 per
cent of the total. Alumni gifts to higher education were estimated at $4 billion, 12.2
per cent more than in 1995; other individuals gave an estimated $3.4 billion, a 15.6
per cent increase” (Mercer, 1996, p. A41). The Chronicle of Higher Education
(May 2000) reports “American colleges and universities raised an estimated $20.4
billion in private gifts in the 1998-1999 academic year, an increase of almost 11
percent over the previous year and the largest amount ever” ( Lively, A41, May
38
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
5,2000). Lively (2000) attributes “strength of the stock market” as the reason for the
11 percent increase in donations to higher education. Stating that the “biggest
increases were in gifts from foundations, corporations, and other organizations.”
Twenty-nine percent of the total donations made to higher education were from
alumni, totaling the largest group of givers in 1998-1999 with 5.93 billion dollars
(Lively, 2000). The following chart demonstrates both the increase and proportion
of the donations made by alumni, topping the chart at 29 percent. A third of all
donations made to higher education are alumni. Noting alumni give, it is vital to
determined why and potentially explore avenues to reach more alumni with similar
relations to their alma mater.
Voluntary Support For Higher Education
Table 4: Voluntary Support For Higher Education
Year Year Year Year
Amount Amount Percentage Percentage
87-88 95-95 96-97 98-99 87-88 95-96 96-97 98-99
Billions % % % %
Alumni 2.042 3.51 4.65 5.93 24.9 29 29 29
Nonalumni 1.927 2.92: 3.85 4.81 23.5 24 24 24
Corporations 1.853 2.37 3.2 3.61 22.6 19 20 18
Foundations 1.607 2.4 3.05 4.53 19.6 20 19 22
Religious
organizations 0.197 0.219 250 0.330 2.4 2 2 2
Other 0.574 0.840 1.0 0.00119 7.0 7 6 6
Total 0.820 14.2; 16.0 20.4 100 100 100 100
39
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(♦Council for Aid 1989, Chronicle of Higher Education “Sources,” 1998, p.34, Chronicle of Higher
Education, “Private Giving to Colleges Increased 11.8% in 1996, Reaching 14.2-Billion” 1997,
p.A41-42, Chronicle of Higher Education “Giving to Higher Education Breaks Another Record,”
2000, p.A41)
Realizing the increasing need to better identify alumni donors, Hueston
(1992) developed a Predictive Model with the intention of raising more money for
the Office of Development at New Mexico State University. Acknowledging that
donors are often poorly followed or identified, it was Hueston’s (1992) intention to
develop an easy identification system for current and potential donors by rating the
donor’s profile as either a “Giving Group” member or a “Probability group”
member. Once the donor has been classified, time is less of a concern for the
development office to do research from scratch. Hueston’s (1992) study revealed
that:
• 72% of the doors were 45 years or older
• 19% of the donors had spouses that also attended NMSU
• 35% of the donors lived in Los Cruses
• 24% of the donors lived in New Mexico, and
• 80% of the donors were married
• 75% of the donors were males
Hueston (1992) suggested that a successful donor database include the following
information:
• Salary levels and histories
• Full descriptive occupation codes
• Attendance records at various university and alumni chapter functions
• Religious affiliation
• Spouse’s employment, history and educational background
• History of family/relative(s) attendance at the institution
• Names and ages of the alums’ children
• Number of marriages or divorces with the appropriate name(s) of
these spouses
40
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
These demographics help organize a campaign or fundraising drive by
providing a “blue print” of who is most likely to give. It also directs the fundraising
crusades by revealing certain traits. To date, alumni make up the largest percentage
of donations to higher education. Therefore, being able to predict donor behavior is
very important. Many fundraisers rely on demographics to create their database of
potential donors. However, in contrast, Brittingham and Pezzullo (1990) claim that
demographics are poor predictors of donor behavior. Brittingham and Pezzullo
(1990) demonstrate ulterior incentives for donations; either for charitable or
economic reasons. They offer the idea that altruism is the reason that people give to
charitable causes rather than demographic statistics. In fact, according to
Brittingham and Pezzullo (1990), 10% of giving is to the deprived. The authors also
suggest that people give as a function of their income or a tax incentive. This type
of giving is rationalized as a “mutual exchange.” Beyond these two major
incentives, Brittingham and Pezzullo (1990) offer a few other incentives for giving.
• Buying acclaim and friendship
• Yielding to generate egotistic desires
• Repaying advantages received (such as college alumni might wish to do)
• Investing in activities that have indirect utility to donor
• Receiving the tangible prerequisites of private giving.
Therefore, if the college alumni student-athlete had a positive experience they
would be more likely to give. Mercer (1996) points out that “the rate of participation
(by alumni) is an important gauge of what a college’s own constituents think of it”
41
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(p. A33). In other words, Mercer (1996) suggests that the rate of alumni who remain
involved with their alma mater is compatible with the alumni’s attitude towards their
alma mater. “We are beyond the point where we can have people just take the feel
good posture of ‘I went to this institution, and I’m proud of it,’ “he says.” The
bottom line is, if they’re not helping to support the institution, then they’re making it
very difficult for us to survive” (Mercer, 1996, p. A33). Mercer (1996) believes that
alumni support is monumentally responsible for the survival of a university.
“Alumni participation rates are so important to some colleges, however, that they
have gone to extraordinary -and sometimes ethically questionable- lengths to make
them appear higher” (Mercer, 1996, p.A33) Understanding that alumni are the
largest supporters of higher education, fundraisers need to discover what influences
alumni to give to their alma maters. Knowing that alumni are important cogs in a
university’s make-up and developing alumni prior to their departure of their alma
mater are two very valuable concepts. L. Jay Oliva, President of New York
University, understands tha.t a university’s development efforts must start with
cultivating future alumni. In other words, “part of the educational process is to help
students understand what their role is in supporting their institution” (Desruisseax,
1999, p. A41).
Some argue that altruism is the reason for alumni to donate to their alma
mater (Brittingham and Pezzullo, 1990, Bruggink & Siddiqui, 1995). Others claim
that alumni give because they carry on close social and emotional ties with their
institution (Leslie & Ramey, 1988). And still others (Tsiotsou, 1998, Shulman &
42
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Bowen, 2001) claim that the best predictor of donors comes from emotional
attachment to the school, participation in alumni events and participation in and
donation to other voluntary and religious groups. Beeler (1982) suggested that
emotional attachment is the strongest predictor of donor status. Leslie and Ramey
(1988) claim that “the rationality of an alumnus will instead involve his or her
reputation as reflected in the prestige of the alma mater, a desire to repay the
institution for education, or heightened recognition of the academic benefits
provided by the institution” (Leslie & Ramey, 1988, p.121). “It seems reasonable
that alumni are more eager to receive recognition from institutions which elicit fond
memories” (Harrison & Mitchell, 1995, Bruggink & Siddiqui, 1995). Athletics may
serve as a form that ties individuals emotionally to the university (especially alumni)
and influences their giving behavior (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990). Besides
emotional bonds, which are difficult to measure, it has been noted that graduates who
finish in the top third of their class were more likely to be donors (Shulman and
Bowen, 2001, Baade& Sundberg, 1996, and Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990).
Better students are in a position to get more out of their education; they
improve the educational experience their classmates receive; and they can
probably be expected to earn more after graduation. All three effects should
make such alumni more likely to contribute to their almae matres (Baade &
Sundberg, 1996, p.794).
Studies have also discovered the following trends in donor behavior.
• Giving increases with age (Jencks, 1987, Bruggink & Siddiqui, 1995,
Shulman & Bowen, 2001). Testing a lifecycle hypothesis with respect to
alumni giving to small liberal arts schools, Olsen, Smith and Wunnava (1989)
43
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
found that the growth rate of donations coincided with the age-income profile
of donors and became negative at their retirement age. Declined after 52.
(Harrion and Mitchell, 1995)
• Married or widowed people give more than single people (Brittingham and
Pezzullo, 1990)
• “We think alumni donate to their colleges because they desire recognition,
and thereby status” (Harrison & Mitchell, 1995).
• Harrison and Mitchell (1995) argue that alumni contribute to their alma mater
for two reasons, one, what the university had done for them and two, what the
university will do for them (ie. Football tickets). Harrison and Mitchell
define this giving motivation as, “ a mutual satisfaction of needs,” much like
Brittingham and Pezzullo’s economic rationale. Harrison and Mitchell also
noted “the probability that an alumni will give is found to increase with
spending on alumni relations” (Harrison & Mitchell, 1995). Two noticeable
findings surfaced, Greek life positively contributted to alumni giving whereas
part-time status negatively affected alumni giving percentages (Bruggink &
Siddiqui, 1995). “It has also been reported that students involved in
extracurricular activities (Greek or professional organizations) are more
likely to make donations to their universities and be involved as alumni”
(Tsiotsou, 1998, Bruggink & Siddiqui, 1995).
• Women are the most generous (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990).
• Wealthy respondents give higher portions of their total charitable giving to
44
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
colleges and universities (Baade & Sundberg, 1996). People who donate
$500.00 or more make larger gifts to higher education (Brittingham &
Pezzullo, 1990, p.36).
• Less wealthy people favor donations to religious causes (Brittingham &
Pezzullo, 1990).
• The average gift is much higher at private universities and at liberal arts
colleges (Baade and Sundburg, 1996).
• Donors might expect a preference for nearby institutions because they wish to
promote education in their locality, even if the same gift to higher-quality but
more distant institution would be more beneficial. (Leslie & Ramey, 1988)
• Older institutions not only have more alumni than younger ones of similar
size, but they are more likely to have well- established alumni groups and a
tradition of alumni giving and interaction that can only develop with time
(Baade and Sundberg, 1996, Rhoads & Gerking, 2000).
• Earning one or more degrees from an institution (Shulman & Bowen, 2001).
• Athletes on losing teams were more likely to give than those on winning
teams (Shulman & Bowen, 2001).
• Students might feel more a part of smaller institutions, (Baade and Sundberg,
1996) and therefore build an emotional tie to that institution. (Shulman &
Bowen, 2001).
• There is no relationship between giving and wining or losing record except at
Division III schools. (Shulman & Bowen, 2001).
45
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Gaining a better understanding of an alumni donor’s profile helps fundraisers
target their asking population. Profiling an alumni donor also expedites the
solicitor’s ability to create a relationship with the donor. Once the solicitor
understands the donor’s motive for donating, they are then able to make an
applicable request for funds.
The Effect o f Athletic Success on Alumni Donations
For years, scholars and fundraisers alike have been trying to determine the
influence of successful intercollegiate athletic programs on alumni donations. “In
particular, the most basic questions have not been answered yet by current research:
why do people make donations to athletic programs?” (Tsiotsou, 1998, p. 1). Several
studies have examined the empirical relationship between athletic success and
charitable contributions to institutions of higher education (Coughlin & Erekson,
1984, Sigelman & Bookheimer 1983, Booker & Klastorin 1981, Sigelman & Carter,
1979, Koch, 1983, Grimes & Chressanthis, 1994). “The role of intercollegiate
athletics has been a source of controversy since the late nineteenth century when
college teams first met on the football field” (Grimes & Chressanthis, 1994, p. 27).
As college athletics has become more sophisticated over the past two decades,
studies regarding the relationship between alumni contributions and athletic success
have become the focus. In 1979, Sigelman and Carter studied 138 Division I
colleges. Sigelman and Carter (1979) were unable to detect a relationship between
athletic success and increased alumni donations after examining the question “what
evidence is there that athletic success stimulates alumni giving?” (p.285). Stating six
46
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
examples of a volatile donation/ athletic success ratio ranging from win/loss statistics
versus alumni contributions to claims made by college presidents. Sigelman and
Carter (1979) concluded that none of the athletic success measures is closely related
to changes in alumni giving “purely random association” and that “most schools
obtain only a small proportion of their support from alum.” (p.292). Concluding that
there is “simply no relation between success or failure in football and basketball and
increases and decreases in alumni giving” (p.293). However, Brooker and Kalstorin
(1981) were able to assess a meaningful difference between a winning collegiate
athletic program and an increase in alumni donations. Using Sigelman and Carter
(1979) statistics, this study identified itself as being unique because it used the same
statistics from the previous study yet separated the homogeneous Division I
“lumping” into institutional factors. These institutional factors included the nature of
the institution; private versus public. As a result, Brooker and Klastorian (1981)
suggest that “it is imperative to perform an analysis that is comparable “ (p.749). In
other words, when like colleges were compared, similar patterns were unveiled. For
example, a relationship did exist among alumni contributions and athletic success
and religious oriented schools who were ranked within the top 20 for football.
In 1983 Sigelman and Bookheimer revisited the fascination of discovering a
positive relationship between alumni contributions and athletic success. In review of
Brooker and Klastorin’s (1981) study, Sigelman and Bookheimer (1983) concurred
with Sigelman’s 1979 findings that no correlation can be determined between alumni
contributions and athletic success. Sigelman's original unsophisticated study, states
47
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
again no conclusion. This study however, replicates Brooker and Klastorin's 1981
study reviewing institutions’ factors and environmental influences such as size,
public vs. private, academic quality, HotBed factor, Prevailing ethos and only game
in town variables. This time, Sigelman and Bookheimer do conclude that football
fans are the most likely to donate yet strongly conclude “that athletic fund raising is
also very likely to compete with general university fund raising, thus draining off
much-needed revenues, which might otherwise be used in conjunction with the
university’s primary mission of education students “ (p.358). In addition states
“success brings in money, money makes it easier to succeed, and success brings in
more money still; as the process feels upon itself, the rich get richer and poor get
poorer” (p.358).
It was in 1984 that Coughlin and Ereckson decided to take an economic
analytical approach to the unresolved conclusion regarding alumni donations and
athletic success. Coughlin and Ereckson (1984) focused on the idea that to study
donors one needed to focus on the potent ional market to ensure potential donations.
The study discovered “positive relationships between potential contributions and
attendance” (p. 196). In addition, this study discovered a relationship between
alumni donations and increases or decreases in attendance. Re-examining Sigelman
and Bookheimer’s research, this study found “football success significantly
48
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
increases athletic contributions” and that “attendance is a more powerful variable
than football winning percentage” (p. 202)
And lastly, Grimes and Chressanthis (1994) still again investigated the
relationship between alumni contributions and athletic success. In review of the
previous studies, Grimes and Chressanthis (1994) disclaimed all findings. First, they
cited Coughlin and Ereckson (1984) as being negligent in accounting for the “spill
over effect of athletic success on non-athletic academic donations” (p. 28). Noting
Sigelman and Carter (1979) used “correlation analysis and single variable
regression” faulting their research approach. After reviewing Brooker and
Klastorian’s (1981) study, Grimes and Chressanthis (1984) agreed that a positive
relationship is signified as a result of analyzing homogeneous groups of institutions,
yet acknowledged both studies failed to ascertain a significant relationship between
alumni contributions and athletic success. Therefore, their study focused on “time-
series, of extended athletic success and exposure, NCAA sanctions as deterrents and
the impact of televised sports coverage on academic contributions” (p. 29). Grimes
and Chressanthis (1984) chose to study Mississippi State University over a thirty-
year span from 1962-1991 hoping there findings would transpose to other like
Division I institutions. They concluded that size of alumni was a factor in this
relationship as well as overall athletic success which does create and “overspill
49
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
benefit” to university, television exposure increases contributions, and lastly, NCAA
sanctions can decrease alumni contributions.
A study by Baade and Sundberg (1996) examined alumni donations and
successful athletic programs in addition to other student and institutional
characteristics that may affect donations. Baade and Sundberg (1996) concluded
that winning athletic programs were not the ultimate cause for increased alumni
donations, rather bowl game appearances seemed to alter alumni donations. The
authors were able to distinguish a correlation between winning and increased alumni
donations for liberal arts colleges. An appearance in the NCAA basketball
tournament was not correlaited with an increase in the average gift, however, football
bowl appearances were significantly and positively correlated with the average gift
per alum (Baade & Sundberg, 1996, Rhoads & Gerking, 2000). Baade and Sundberg
(1996) discovered that “in general, colleges and universities seem to be rewarded by
their alumni for sports programs that are extremely successful. Athletic success has
an immediate impact on alumni generosity” (Baade & Sundberg, 1996, p.802).
However, Shulman and Bowen (2001) discovered that an increase in NCAA
Division I-A wins can lower general giving. They attributed this to alumni feelings
that winning programs bring in tremendous amount of money and therefore, the
university is not in need of the donors’ gift. In addition, alumni giving was not
affected by either a school’s NCAA division, or its control (i.e., public or private), or
whether it is primarily a research/doctoral institution. (Shulman & Bowen, 2001).
50
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The Student-Athlete as an Alumni
Over the years, alumni donations have been closely examined while little has
been studied about alumni student-athlete donations (Tsiotsou, 1998). More
interestingly, why do so few student-athletes give back to their alma maters?
Shulman and Bowen (2001) propose that there has been a general decline in
allegiance to alma maters among student-athletes over the years. The authors have
speculated that this lack of loyalty to a student-athlete’s alma mater stems from the
intensity of collegiate athletics. The current student-athlete is a year-round
competitor who is less involved with their campus and more involved with their
athletic contributions to the university. In fact, Shulman and Bowen (2001) have
discovered that high profile athletes (predominantly NCAA D-I football, basketball
and hockey players) in big-time programs feel that they have given more than they
have received. In fact, Shulman and Bowen (2001) have discovered that high profile
athletes (predominantly NCAA D-I football, basketball and hockey players) in big-
time programs feel that they have given more than they have received.
“former athletes have become financial winners in the game of life and having had
the privilege of representing their school in competition, are disproportionately
generous toward their alma mater (Shulman and Bowen ,2001, p. 206).
Student-athletes on average have gained transferable skills which have
enhanced their overall development, enabling them to succeed on and off the court.
51
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
General Giving Percentage Rates
Table 5: General Giving Percentage Rates
B High Profile Athletes
E O Lower Profile Athletes
□ Students at Large
1951 1976 1989
(Shulman & Bowen, p. 208)
Shulman and Bowen (2001) demonstrate the decline in male high profile
student-athletes willingness to give back to their alma mater while the general public
seems to remain consistent with their generosity. In fact, high profile male student-
athletes have continually decreased their financial support in comparison to low
profile student-athletes and students at large. The lack of student-athlete’s desire to
give back to their alma mater does not surprise university officials around the United
States. For example, Arnold Weber, President Emeritus of Northwestern University
and also a former President of the University of Colorado, believes:
Former athletes are probably less likely to “give back” to the university after
graduation because increasingly they feel that they were “used” when they
were engaged in intercollegiate competition. The bald expression of the
sentiment is, “The university makes lots of money on our back but won’t pay
us a dime.” Flence the recurrent demand that athletes receive direct monetary
compensation in addition to the prescribed scholarship package- (Shulman &
Bowen, p. 209).
Stanford University Athletic Director, Ted Leland, echoed these sentiments:
“when I go out to raise money for Stanford and talk to former athletes, I tend to hear
things like, “I gave my knee to Stanford-that’s all you’re getting from me” (Shulman
52
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
& Bowen, 2000, p.205). The fact that these university officials are sensing a lack of
support from former alumni alludes to the idea that universities need to build a
functioning relationship with its student-athletes while they are current members of
their institutions. Asking a person for a financial donation after they have spent 20
hours a week, in accordance with NCAA Bylaws, practicing, traveling, and
competing while maintaining academic good standing and representing their
institution without knowing if they were on scholarship or holding down a job can
sometimes prove burdensome. This concept often emphasizes the importance of: 1)
better understanding your alumni before asking them for financial support, and 2)
assuring a student-athletes success both athletically and academically while they are
attending school. Simply being a student-athlete does not guarantee admiration and
loyalty to a university but rather a commitment to the love of the sport.
Examples o f some who do Give
Most student-athletes are not giving back financially, while a few are most
generous. In a time when higher education is experiencing severe cut backs, there is
a minute population of student-athletes who are starting to fill that void. “Today, as
players’ salaries skyrocket, as colleges and universities discover clever ways to get at
them and as athletes realize the notoriety that comes with educational philanthropy,
more and more institutions are benefiting from the largess of the athletes they helped
develop” (St. John, 2000, p. 16). For example, former Michigan State basketball
player, Steve Smith, donated $2.5 million to his alma mater in memory of his
mother, to build an academic center for student-athletes. Realizing that Michigan
53
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
State University provided Smith with the opportunities to advance himself as well as
his athletic career, he felt obligated to repay his university. “It (Michigan State
University) gave him the vehicle to become the outstanding NBA all-star that he is
and he felt that because Michigan State was a very important part of his life, he
wanted Michigan State to benefit as well as to show his complete devotion to his
mother” (St. John, p. 17). The idea of giving to a university with the idea of gaining
notoriety is from years past. In fact, this motive can be traced to the beginning of
educational philanthropy when donations were made in hopes of having a college
named after a donor. In the aforementioned case, Mr. Smith also notes the
obligatory nature of his donation by noting the academic foundation his alma mater
provided him in order to advance as a human being. It is this type of adoration that
Brittingham and Pezzullo (1990) anticipated would elicit donations. St. John (2000)
depicts motives of student-athletes who donate to their alma maters. He recognizes
motives such as “loyalty, devotion, sincerity, compassion, grace and character” as
qualities alumni student-athletes possess and attribute toward educational
philanthropy.
Another example of a generous alumni student-athlete who gave back to his
community is Kevin Lockett, a wide receiver for the Kansas City Chiefs, organized
the Lockett-Up Foundation. The Lockett Foundation focuses on youth development,
basic reading skills and community service in his hometown of Tulsa, Oklahoma, as
well as in Manhattan, Kansas, and Kansas City. The foundation has entered into a
partnership with several Kansas colleges, a local elementary school and the K-State
54
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Student Foundation. St. John (2000) suggested that college can get professional
athletes to attract entertainment establishments and corporate America to match
funds. “For those in the corporate world, sport is a large part of their culture. They
either played sports in high school or college, or their kids play sports. So there is at
his affinity toward sports that is manifested in all the luxury boxes you see at sports
arenas”. (St. John, 2000, p. 21). Society is craving athletic leadership. There are
sound practical reasons for an athlete to give back part of his salary, and the concept
would be a boon for fans too (McCallum, 1990).
Conclusions
Educational philanthropy has existed since the beginning of academia. It has
continued to grow at exponential rates throughout the years and has eventually
become a necessity for institutions to exist. Various attempts have been used to
secure these monies. These methods have been enhanced, replicated and evaluated
discovering the most beneficial approach to fundraising that reflects each
institution’s needs. Dully noted, collegiate athletics has continually played an
important part of college fundraising. In fact, this role has grown at an amazing rate
in a parallel fashion with the growth of the NCAA.
As the need for collegiate athletic teams to be divided into divisions of size
and competition for national titles has grown, television coverage has included the
interest of many. Studies have indicated that publication of such events entices
followings and loyalties that usher in financial donations. As athletic popularity
continues to grow, so too does the cost and population of alumni student-athletes.
55
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Who is going to continue to fund collegiate athletics? “A critical issue facing all
intercollegiate athletic departments is generating and maintaining the funding
necessary to sustain a nationally competitive athletic department. One crucial
component of the financial vitality of any athletic department is annual gift dollars”
(Selig, 2000, abstract). To help offset the alarming cost of collegiate athletics, more
and more donors are needed to secure financial donations. Noting the amount of
money necessary to conduct business at this level, it is increasingly important to
identify financial resources.
A prominent segment of the total donor population within higher education
consists of alumni donors. According to The Chronicle of Higher Education
Almanac (Sources, 1998), alumni annual giving represented the fastest growing
voluntary donor segment of colleges and universities (Selig, 2000). According to the
Top Ten Trends in Philanthropy, giving will increase at the greatest rate in history
between 1998-2002 (Martin, D., 1997). Knowing this, fund-raisers need to focus
their attention on alumni and mores specifically alumni student-athletes and their
desires to donate.
56
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Introduction
“A critical issue facing all intercollegiate athletic departments is generating
and maintaining the funding necessary to sustain a nationally competitive athletic
department. One crucial component of the financial vitality of any athletic
department is annual gift dollars” (Selig, 2000). To help offset the alarming cost of
collegiate athletics, more donors are needed to secure financial donations. Noting
the amount of money necessary to conduct business at this level, it is increasingly
important to identify financial resources.
A prominent segment of the total donor population within higher education
consists of alumni donors. According to The Chronicle o f Higher Education
Almanac (Sources, 1998, p.27), alumni annual giving represents the fastest growing
voluntary donor segment of colleges an universities. According to The Top Ten
Trends in Philanthropy, giving will increase at the greatest rate in history between
1998-2002 (Martin, I)., 1997). It is necessary for collegiate athletic departments and
57
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
universities to identify the relationship between alumni student-athletes and
educational philanthropy.
Research Questions
The research questions examined in this study were as follows:
1. What is the relationship between alumni athletes and educational
philanthropy?
2. Why are student-athletes less likely to financially support their alma
maters?
Research Design
This study was designed to examine the attitudes of alumni student-athletes
regarding educational philanthropy. To determine these attitudes, a survey was
designed and distributed to a cross-sectional population of alumni student-athletes.
The responses were collected and assigned numerical values so that statistical
comparisons could be evaluated. In addition to these responses, the participants had
the opportunity to individually express their opinion with an open-ended response.
Using frequency charts, chi-square analyses as well as charting for themes, the data
was analyzed and conclusions drawn.
Population and Sample
Population and Sample
The subjects in this study were professional involved in various aspects of
college athletics. The first solicitation began at the National Consortium for
Academics and Athletics annual conference held in Orlando, Florida, February 4-6,
58
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2001. At registration, the Subjects were provided with the survey as part of their
conference binders including a brief presentation outlining the purpose of collecting
the data. Twenty-five subjects responded. Soon thereafter, both the National
Association of Academic Advisors for Athletics (N4A) and the California
Community Colleges Association of Academic Advisor for Athletics (3C4A) were
contacted via Internet email and provided the survey and purpose presented at the
conference. As a result there were of the aforementioned ninety eight anonymous
surveys from various colleges and universities nationwide were completed and
returned.
Instrumentation
The instrument is a new design whose purpose was to solicit former student-
athletes opinions and ideas regarding educational philanthropy. After close review
of published survey prepared by Kathryn S. Keirouz, Ph.D., entitled Public
Perceptions and Confidence in Indiana Nonprofit Organizations, this study was able
to better solicit demographic information as well as a clear understanding of data
presentations via tables. The survey is separated into four distinct sections. Section
one solicits general demographic information in addition to five questions regarding
parental information. Section two is made up of nine questions focusing on potential
donor behavior. The third section of this survey is a 26 item check list comprised of
potential ideas of why a subject may have made a financial donation to their alma
mater. The close of this questionnaire, section four, offers subjects an opportunity to
explain their donor behavior with an open-ended response.
59
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Pilot Study
The survey was first distributed to student-athletes attending Mount San
Antonio College, Walnut, California. Student-athletes were asked to complete the
original survey within fifteen minutes. Once the instrument was completed, the
researcher asked the pilot subjects what was difficult about completing the survey
and if there were any additional comments the subject would like to make. After
four attempts, the instrument was modified in length, time, and clarity.
Data Collection
The instrument was distributed to the Annual National Consortium for
Academic and Sports Conference, held in Orlando, Florida at the Disney World
Coronado Resort February 4-6, 2001. The two-page questionnaire for this study
consisted of four specific sections. Section one of the questionnaire presents 13
demographic questions for each participant and focused on cross tabulations of
giving behavior and demographic information. The questions address marital status,
annual income, educational level, grade point average, athletic competition level,
charitable donations, alma mater donations, directed donations, and parental
donation history. Section two represents future giving behavior
possibilities. Section three provides opportunities for participants to explain their
giving behavior via selection of pre-prescribe statements. And lastly, section four is
an open-ended opportunity for comments. There were approximately 200 attendants,
who represented 15 intercollegiate sports through out the nation that were provided
with the instrument as part of their conference registration packet. During the
60
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
second day of the conference a brief presentation was conducted and attendees were
encouraged to participate in the study by completing their survey. In addition to this
group, both the N4A (National Association of Academic Advisors for Athletics) and
the 3C4A (California Community Colleges Association of Academic Advisors for
Athletics) were asked to also encouraged to complete the instrument via Email.
Data Analysis
First, demographic data was collected. For example, participants age,
income,marital status, etc. (See Table 1). Chi-Square analyses were run to
understand the different behavior between alumni student-athletes that financially
give back to their alma maters (givers) and those who do not (non givers).
Frequency distributions were run for all quantitative questions in sections 1, 2 and 3.
A new category was created for “Giver” or “Non giver” if the respondent checked
any of the items in section three. Then a crosstabulation was designed for givers and
nongivers with several demographic characteristics: marital status, annual income,
education level, grade point average, athletic level, sport, and charitable giving.
Qualitative Findings Appendix
Next, the researcher sifted through the responses to the open-ended questions
and noted themes that emerged from the responses (See Appendix H). The themes
that emerged were divided into two categories; Givers and Non-Givers. Seven of the
Givers chose to compose a comment in the section provided. Four of the seven
Giving alumni student-athletes echoed the sentiment that they gave with the idea of
61
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
providing an opportunity for someone else. The remaining three responses were
individual in thought. One alumni Giving student-athlete intentions were based on
their athletic program fostering a “proper-philosophy”, another gave based on
experiencing a winning season, and yet another for understanding the need for
scholarship dollars. Twenty-seven Non-Giving alumni student-athletes provided
comments in the area provided. Eight of the twenty-seven participants stated they
were never asked, six noted they were not financially able to contribute, six were
disenchanted with decisions or differences of their athletic department’s
philosophies, four demonstrated a desire to give to organizations other than their
athletic department, two explained that they did not receive financial assistance as a
reason not to support their athletic department, and one respondent simply asked
“why should I?”
62
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS
This chapter presents the findings from the data collected on alumni student-
athletes regarding attitudes towards educational philanthropy. The two-page
questionnaire for this study consisted of four specific sections. Section one of the
questionnaire presents 13 demographic questions for each participant and focused on
cross tabulations of giving behavior and demographic information. The questions
address marital status, annual income, educational level, grade point average, athletic
competition level, charitable donations, alma mater donations, directed donations,
and parental donation history. Section two represents future giving behavior
possibilities. Section three provides opportunities for participants to explain their
giving behavior via selection of pre-prescribe statements. And lastly, section four is
an open-ended opportunity for comments. Alumni Student-Athlete Responses
Alumni Student-Athlete Responses
A total of 98 surveys were completed. The responses were recorded into two
groups; givers and nongivers based on their response to section two of the
questionnaire. Givers completed 69 surveys, 70.40% of the overall responses and
nongivers completed 29 surveys, 29.59% of the overall survey responses (See Tables
7-10 below).
Frequency Distributions
63
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A frequency distribution (Table 6) was run for each demographic question.
Table 6: Demographic Characteristics
Demographic Number Percent
Age
20-30 32 .31
31-40 33 .32
41-50 15 .14
51-60 14 .13
61-70 5 .04
Other 3 .02
Gender
Male
66 .64
Female
22 .21
Ethnicity
Caucasian
65 .63
African American
27 .26
Hispanic
5 .04
Other
5 .04
Sport
Football
24 .24
Basketball 20 .20
Baseball 13 .13
Track 11 .11
Volleyball 8 .08
Swimming 6 .06
Soccer 5 .05
Softball 3 .03
Other 8 .08
Marital Status
Single 36 .37
Single with Partner 4 .04
Married 56 .57
Divorced 2 .02
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 6. Demographic Characteristics (Continued)
Annual Income Number Percent
Less than 10,000 9 .09
10,000 - 20,000 3 .03
21,000-40,000 24 .25
40,000 - 60,000 19 .20
61,000-80,000 16 .16
More than 80,000 25 .26
Educational Level
Sophomore 2 .02
Junior 1 .01
Senior 14 .15
Graduated 14 .15
Graduate School 62 .67
Grade Point Average
A/A- 20
B+/B- 61
C+ 10 .11
Athletic Level
NCAA DI-A 58 .60
NCAA DI-AA 9 .09
NCAA DII 13 .13
NCAA Dili 9 .09
NAIA 6 .06
Other 3 .03
Amount of giving to charitable organizations
$0.00 8 .10
$25.00-100.00 15 .19
$100.00-500.00 27 .34
$500.00-1,000.00 17 .21
$1,000.00-5,000.00 23 .28
$5,000- 10,000.00 6 .07
$25.00-100.00 15 .19
$100.00-500.00 27 .34
$500.00-1,000.00 17 .21
$1,000.00-5,000.00 23 .28
$5,000- 10,000.00 6 .07
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 7: Marital Status and Giving Behavior
Marital Status Giver Percent
Non Giver
Percent
Single 22 .31 14 .48
Single with Partner 4 .05 0 0
Married 41 .59 15 .51
Divorced 2 .02 0 0
Total 69 .97 29 .99
Table 8: Income Levels and Giving Behavior
Annual Income Giver Percent Non Giver Percent
Less than $10,000 7 . 10 2 .06
$10,000.00-20,000.00 2 .02 1 .03
$21,000.00-40,000.00 14 .20 10 .34
$41,000.00-60,000.00 14 .20 5 .17
$61,000.00-80,000.00 14 .20 2 .06
Greater than 80,000.00 16 .23 9 .31
Total 67 .95 29 .99
Table 9: Educational Level and Giving Behavior
Educational Level Giver Percent Non Giver Percent
Sophomore 1 .01 1 .03
Junior 1 .01 0 .00
Senior 12 .18 6 .21
Graduated 7 .10 7 .24
Graduate School 47 .69 15 .52
Total 68 .99 29 .99
66
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 10: Sport and Giving Behavior
Competition
Division
Giver Percent Non Giver Percent
NCAA DI 20 .29 10 .34
NCAA DI-AA 14 .20 5 .17
NCAA II 8 .12 5 .17
NCAA III 3 .04 3 .10
NAIA 3 .04 3 .10
OTHER 7 .20 2 .02
Total 55 0.89 29 0.90
Descriptives
Questions seven and eight asked the participants to make predictions of how
they would direct their donation should they have demonstrated the interest to give
back to their alma mater. The results have been charted in ranking order (SEE
TABLES 11 & 13 below). These results are followed by a group of open-ended
responses to this question (SEE Tables 12 & 14 below). Appendix E contains the
selection choices for items 7 and 8 on the questionnaire that is on Appendix A and
Appendix F contains the selection choices for the open-ended responses.
Table 11: Selection and Percentage
Question #7 If you were to give back to your alma mater, to whom would you give?
Selection
Percentage
Athletic Administration
.41
Athletic Department .34
Coach .15
Other .15
Professor .08
67
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 12: Open Ended Responses
Question #7 If you were to give back to your alma mater, to whom would you give?
Open-Ended Responses Number Percent
Team
Unrestricted
Drag and Alcohol Education Service Learning
None (non-athlete)
Athletic Trainers (trainer)
Specific Sport Program
Residence Life
Table 13: Selection
Question #8 What could a college do to better enable its' alumni to give back?
Selection Number Percent
T each current students .49
Other .29
Mail out newsletters .28
Alumni donation web-page .14
Involve Alumni in hiring .13
Table 14: Open-Ended Responses
Question #8 Twenty-four alumni student-athletes responded the open-ended option in the following
manner.
Open-Ended Responses Number Percent
Doing a good job 2 .12
Make athletics a positive experience 5 .21
Create special events/programs 8 .34
Involve the alumni 8 .34
Educate current student athletes 1 .04
68
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Charitable Donations
When asked about the amount given to charitable organizations the most
popular response was a $100-500 dollar donation by 27 (34%) of the respondents
followed by 23 (28%) donating $1,0000-5,0000. Next, 17 (21%) reported a
charitable donation between $500.00 and $1,0000. Fifteen (19%) gave a $25.00-100
dollar donation, 8 (10%) did not make a donation, and 6 (7%) made a contribution of
$10,000 or more.
SECTIONI
Crosstabulations fo r Givers and Nongivers
Crosstabulations were run on giving and nongiving and each demographic
question. There were no si gnificant differences of the aforementioned variables
except for grade point average and athletic level of competition (SEE TABLE 15).
Grade Point Average and Giving Behavior
Self-reported collegiate grade point averages of participants were correlated with
giving behavior. A Chi-Square analysis revealed significance X2 (6, N = 94) =
18.20, p = 006.
Table 15: Grade Point Average
Giver Percent Non Giver Percent
A/A- 14 .22 6 .31
B+/B/B- 34 .54 9 .47
C+/C 14 .22 4 .21
Total 62 .98 19 .99
69
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Division o f Collegiate Athletic Competition and Giving Behavior
Collegiate athletic level and giving behavior were crosstabulated X2 (5, N = 98) =
12.6, p =.03. The biggest difference here is clearly associated with Division IA
where 67% gave compared to 41% who did not give to their alma mater.
Table 16: Division IA Collegiate Athletic Competition and Giving Behavior
Competition Division Giver Percent Non Giver Percent
I-A 46 .67 12 .41
1-AA 7 .10 2 .07
II 7 .10 6 .20
III 3 .04 6 .20
NAIA 5 .07 1 .03
Other 1 .014 2 .07
Total 69 0.99 29 0.98
SECTION 2
Section two represents potential giving behavior of alumni student-athletes.
Participants were asked to indicate “yes” or “no” to every question. These
responses are arranged in descending order of frequency. The top four
responses for why alumni students-athletes would potentially make a future
donation to their alma mater are: (85%) the alma mater contacted the alum,
(81%) if their donation was used for a scholarship, (81%) would attend a
charitable event, and (67%) if their donation were to be used for facilities.
70
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 17: Future Giving Possibilities
Yes No
Alma mater contact 83 .85 15 .15
Donate for scholarship 79 .81 19 .19
Charitable event attendance 79 .81 19 .29
Donate for facilities 65 .67 33 .34
Athletic Admin, “outside” attendance 49 .50 49 .50
Will, estate plan, living trust 47 .48 51 .52
Sponsored events 39 .40 59 .60
Making a living trust become an endowed scholarship 30 .31 68 .70
Explanation of scholarship origin 23 .24 75 .76
SECTION 3
Section three of the questionnaire provided each participant with a checklist
to indicate ideas of why they gave back to the participant’s alma mater. Table 18 lists
the reasons cited in descending order of frequency. The top five reasons alumni
student-athletes give back to their alma mater are: (87%) I received an excellent
education, (72%) I liked my teammates, (64%) My parents encouraged me to attend
71
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
college, (59%) my head coach was an excellent coach, (59%) I liked my coach,
(58%) I liked my position coach.
Table 18: Reasons for Giving to Alma Mater
Reason No. %
I received an excellent education 60 .87
I liked my teammates 49 .72
My parents encouraged me to attend college 44 .64
My head coach was an excellent coach 41 .59
I liked my coach 40 .58
I liked my position coach 30 .43
I started almost every game 29 .42
My professors encouraged me to be successful in everything I attempted 29 .42
I received a full scholarship 29 .42
My parents provided me with academic support
27 .39
We won most of our games
27 .39
I liked my athletic facilities 25 .36
The athletic department provided me with academic support 24 .35
My church encouraged me to give back to my community 22 .32
The athletic department provided my sport with excellent travel accommodations 22 .32
My parents encouraged me to give back to my college 8 .12
My position coach helped me to get to the NFL 3 .04
My head coach helped me to get to the NFL 1 .02
My athletic director helped me to get to the NFL 0 .00
My NFL contract requires that I give back to my college 0 .00
72
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
SECTION 4
This section is an opportunity for participants to present any comment they
may have. The following are comments for two groups: Givers and Non givers.
Givers
Seven comments were recorded by the givers. Of the seven comments, 4
claimed that the reason they gave back to their alma mater was to provide another
person with the same opportunity they were provided. One giver stated that they
gave because their athletic program had a “proper philosophy.” Another Giver
recognized the need for financial assistance as a result of being involved in the field
(athletics) as a professional. The last Giver cited winning (1997 Champs!) as the
reason he/she financial gives back to her alma mater.
Non Givers
Twenty-seven non givers cited reasons for not financially supporting their
alma mater. Of the non givers 28% cited that the reason they do not give back to
their alma mater because they were never asked. Twenty-four percent (24%)
claimed that they were not financially able to give back to their alma maters. The
73
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
following ten groupings that can be examined below (See Table 19) offer
explanations for why alumni student-athletes do not give back.
Table 19: Reasons Alumni Student-Athletes Do Not Give Back To Their Alma
Maters
Reasons Number
Percent
Never Asked 8 .28
Not Financially Secure 7 .24
Dislike Administration
2 .07
Marginal experience
2 .07
Money goes for Buildings 1 .03
Why? 1 .03
Difference in beliefs 1 .03
Fired my coach 1 .03
Not able to earmark donation 1 .03
Paid for college 1 .03
Walk-on 1 .03
Other interests 1 .03
Total 27 1.00
74
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
Financial support, on a continual basis, is a fundamental requirement for
successful athletic department programs. Potential sources that are consistently
overlooked, though easily accessible, are the alumni that have benefited to one
degree or another from the Athletic Department needing this support. By
restructuring the funding of an Athletic Department, alumni student-athletes could
become significant contributors. This restructuring suggests that athletic directors
can serve as the immediate source of maximizing financial assistance from alumni
student-athletes. After surveying former student-athletes, it has become apparent
that if particular needs are met, alumni student-athletes will make donations to their
athletic department.
As stated, the funds that enable an athletic department to remain competitive
continually increase. This unending cycle of competition creates an atmosphere of
continual pressure to secure scholarship dollars. It seems likely, that alumni student-
athletes would be the most vested group to financially support their alma maters.
Rather, literature suggests that, when asked, alumni student-athletes are not likely to
be inclined to donate to their alma mater and the trend is they are increasingly giving
less and less (Shulman & Bowen, 2000).
To date, alumni make up the largest percentage of donations to higher
education. Therefore, the ability to predict alumni donor behavior is imperative.
Many fundraisers rely on demographics to create their database of potential donors,
75
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
however, Brittingham and Pezzullo (1990) claim that demographics are poor
predictors of donor behavior. Acknowledging this reality, fundraisers need to
develop relationships with potential donors based on the alum’s unique collegiate
experience. Alumni experiences can vary in degree, yet student-athletes, in general,
maintain a homogeneous experience. Because this group has similarities, it is in the
best interest of the fundraiser to understand their culture in hopes of soliciting
donations. For example, all student-athletes’ experiences include the responsibility
of complying with NCAA Bylaws, traveling, practicing, and competing. Realizing
that student-athletes have identified themselves as a unique group, better enables a
fundraiser to secure a potential donation. Profiling a group, such as student-athletes,
is a difficult task due to the vast differences among universities and athletic
divisions. For example, Shulman and Bowen (2001) have discovered that high
profile alumni student-athletes (predominantly NCAA D-I football, basketball and
hockey players) in big-time programs feel that they have given more than they have
received. This finding alludes to the idea that universities need to build a functioning
relationship with its’ student-athletes while they are current members of their
institutions. Asking student-athletes for a financial donation without knowing their
athletic history, such as were they on scholarship or holding down a job while
competing, can inhibit a donation. This cold call approach to alumni student-athletes
often emphasizes the importance of: 1) better understanding your alumni before
asking them for financial support, and 2) the importance of assuring a student-
athletes success both athletically and academically while they are attending school.
76
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Fundraisers need to take notice that simply being a student-athlete does not
guarantee admiration and loyalty to a university but rather strengthen a commitment
to the love of the sport.
Most importantly, this study unveiled the importance of an athletic
department’s commitment to a student-athlete’s academic success. This study
demonstrated that student-athletes who achieved academic success were most likely
to give back to their alma mater. In summary, academic success is what ensures
financial support for a university. It is not salary nor win/loss record. Therefore,
instead of spending obscene amounts of money on facilities and coach’s salaries,
athletic departments can guarantee future financial donations by providing excellent
academic assistance to its student-athletes.
This argument is strengthened by this study’s second finding. The second
finding states that academically successful Division I student-athletes were most
likely to give back to their university. Interestingly enough, the NCAA mandates
that Division I student-athletes be provided an academic support program. Hence,
athletic departments that provide students the maximum opportunity to be
academically successful are most likely to receive donations from their alum.
The NCAA mandates academic assistance for Division I student-athletes
based on the rigor of Division I competition and travel schedule. The purpose of the
mandate is to ensure academic support to student-athletes who experience stressful
academic commitments regardless of their academic capabilities. The academic
support provided to these students includes tutoring, study halls, computer labs and
77
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
academic advising. The more sophisticated the academic support program, the more
sophisticated the services. These services can include an NCAA Program entitled
LifeSkills. This program is designed to equip a student-athlete with the necessary
life skills to be successful outside of athletic endeavors. Most LifeSkills Programs
are offered at the Division I level because of their budget.
Student-athletes of all academic abilities, regardless of athletic affiliation or
division, are likely to incur some academic difficulty throughout their collegiate
experience. These difficulties include but are not limited to the tasks of creating a
sound academic schedule, adding or dropping courses, registration course time
conflicts, missed class time due to travel, etc. To alleviate these academic burdens
and to ensure NCAA Bylaws that mandated academic progress, colleges provide
academic assistance via counseling. These counselors are responsible for providing
students every opportunity to be successful academically. For instance, changing a
major can jeopardize a student-athletes’ eligibility. This could ultimately cost a
student their scholarship, regardless of their grade point average. In other words, a
4.0 student-athlete who wishes to change majors without the consultation of an
athletic academic advisor may not meet NCAA Bylaw requirements and ultimately
become ineligible, possibly even loosing a scholarship. A student-athlete, again,
regardless of their academic ability, encounters endless possibilities of becoming
ineligible to participate in athletics, due to unadvised academic decisions. As a
result, of these negative experiences, it is inevitable that the student will become
disenchanted with the university and will not likely make a financial donation in the
78
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
future. Noted, this is a unique experience that can and often does happen to student-
athletes, it is recommended, for these reasons and others, that 1) the fundraiser
understand the student-athlete culture and possible academic experiences and 2) an
athletic department make an academic commitment to ensure future financial
donations.
• Under the direct leadership of the athletic director, it is suggested that
standing meetings be conducted to enhance coaching staff/student
development relationships outside of athletic responsibilities. Students
expressed the feeling of being “used” for their athletic prowess and lacked
the belief that the coaching staff was interested in anything but their
performance. Therefore, the students need to feel that their coaches are
interested in them as a person, beyond their athletic ability. This expectation
can be met by simply training coaches on how to better interact with their
student-athletes.
• There was an overwhelming concurrence that the students fulfilled their
scholarship obligation. This is a misunderstanding. A simple explanation of
a scholarships origin would potentially enhance a student’s desire to donate
to their alma mater.
79
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
• With the desire to secure financial support for the entire Athletic Department,
the Athletic Director needs to develop a total athletic theme/mission for the
department. It is suggested that the Athletic Director develop collaborative
experiences that build department wide bonding opportunities.
• Student athletes expressed a disappointment in the decision making process
of their Athletic Department. Therefore students should be included in
department meetings, staff hirings, and any other decisions that will
ultimately impact the Athletic Department’s existence.
• It is also suggested that the athletic department develop an easy venue for
student-athletes to remain in contact with their alma mater. It is crucial for
the athletic department to offer opportunities for alum to participate in current
athletic department related activities (See Appendix H).
Conclusions
This study acknowledges that collegiate athletics is a major commitment and
part of university life. Although the findings of this study are instructional, it by no
means fills the void in the literature about this important facet of postsecondary
education. For that reason, it is highly recommended that further research be
conducted to understand the relationship between alumni student-athletes and
educational philanthropy. The following suggestions are intended to increase alumni
student-athlete financial donations.
1. Surveying freshmen student-athletes to discover “giver” traits
2. Provide student-athletes workshops that develop and enhance these traits.
80
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3. Brownbag lunches with athletic administration and current student-
athletes in hopes of developing closer relationships with those who are
most likely going to ask for a donation.
4. Alumni student-athletes participate with new hires in all areas of athletics.
5. Graduation and other ceremonies for student athletes be attended or
provided by the athletic department.
6. Senior/freshman mentoring programs
7. Community service includingl athletic administration
8. Participation of student-athletes at athletic administration meetings.
9. Create a database of alumni student-athletes.
Recommendations
It is recommended that for further studies, a larger and perhaps more diverse
sample be analyzed. In addition, it is recommended that further research delve into
the possibility that alumni are donating directly to the athletic department.
This study is an attempt to open the discussion of athletic alumni giving. It is
recommended that the “ball not be dropped” and that this significant aspect of higher
education be given a thorough investigation.
81
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
REFERENCES
Baade, R.A. & Sundberg, J.O. (1996) Fourth down and gold to go?
Assessing the link between athletics and alumni giving. Social Science Quarterly.
P.789-803.
Barr, N. (1993, May) Alternative Funding Resources for Higher Education.
The Economic Journal. 103. (418), 718-728.
Beeler, K J. 1982. “A Study of Predictors of Alumni Philanthropy.” Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Becker, S., Sparks, L., William G., Choi, H. C., & Sell, L. (1986)
Intercollegiate Athletic Committees: Dimensions of Influence. Journal of Higher
Education .57. (4) (July/August).
Booker, G. Klastorin, T.D. (1981) To the victors belong the spoils?
College athletics and alumni giving. Social Science Quarterly. 62 (4). 744-750.
Brittingham , B.E. & Pezzullo, T.R. (1990). The campus green: fund raising
in higher education (ASHE - ERIC Higher Education Report No.l). Washington,
D.C.: George Washington University.
Brubacher, J.S. & Rudy, W. (1997) Higher education in transition: a history
of American colleges and universities, (Fourth Edition), Transaction Publishers: New
Brunswick.
Bruggink, T. & Siddiqui, K. (1995) An econometric model of alumni
giving: a case study for a liberal arts college. American Economist. 39 (2). 53-60.
Burdenski, R.A. (2000) Proceed According to Plan: Why and how to create a
strategic plan for the annual fund. CURRENTS Case. (March).
Cantor, N.E. & Prentice, D.A. (1996). The life of the modern-day student-athlete:
opportunities won and lost. Presented at the Princeton Conference on Higher
Education.
Cardillo, C. (May/June 2000) The Unexamined Donor: For better planning
and greater returns, segment the annual fund by giving behavior. CURRENTS Case.
(May).
82
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Caruthers, F.A.S. (1973). A study of certain characteristics of alumni who
provide financial support and alumni who provide no financial support for their alma
mater. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater.
Chewing, P.B. (1985, July/August). What’s on their minds?: Studies on what
alumni donors think. CURRENTS Case. 11. (7), 30.
Cook, W. & Lasher, W. F. (1996) Toward a theory of fund raising in higher
education. The Review of Higher Education 20. (1 )._33-51.
Coughlin, C. C., & Erekson, O. H. (1984) Contributions to intercollegiate
athletic programs; Further Evidence, Social Science Quarterly. 66:194-202.
__________ , (1984) An Examination of contributions to support
intercollegiate athletics, Southern Economic Journal 51 O'). 180-195.
Cullen, F. T., Latessa, E.J., & Byrne, J. P., (1990) Scandals and reform in
collegiate athletics: implications from a national survey of head football coaches,
Journal of Higher Education, 61,(1 ) p. 50-64.
Deruisseaux, P. (1999) The scramble for money is universal in academe.
The Chronicle of Higher Education. 45, 25 P. A41(2).
Deitz, L .H. (1985). Iowa State University alumni contributions: An analysis
of alumni giving patterns by selected class years. 1974 and 1979. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University, Ames.
Durrett, A. (1991) The spirit of giving. IDEA today 9. (10). 46-52.
Edelson, M. (1999) A kid at heart, NBA rising star Brian Grant does his best work
off the court. Sport. 88-94.
Fink, J.S., Fink-Silvers, J. (1999) Give and ye shall receive - what every
athletic administrator should know about the advantages of charitable giving through
charitable Remainder Trusts, Journal of Legal Aspects of Sport. 9 (1). 34-39.
Fulks, D.L. (1989) Revenues and expenses of divisions I and II
intercollegiate athletic programs, financial trends and relationships-1997. Overland
Park, KS: National Collegiate Athletic Association.
Gibbs, A. (1996, Summer). The role of environmental scanning in
fundraising. In D.W. Brenman & A.L. Taylor (Eds.), Strategies for promoting
excellence in a time of scares resources. San Francisco: Josssey-Bass.
83
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Goldberg, D. (1988, April). The young and the generous. CURRENTS
Case. 14(41. 6.
Grace, J.D. (1993). Trends in fund-raising research. In Worth (Ed.),
Educational fund raising: Principles and practice. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.
Grimes, P. W. and Chressanthis, G. A. (1994) Alumni contributions to
academics: the role of intercollegiate sports and ncaa sanctions, American Journal
of Economics and Sociology. 53 (If. 27-40.
Hall, H. (1992) Women’s new charity clout. The Chronicle of Philanthropy.
4(17).1.
Hancock, L. (1995) The Power of the Purse, Newsweek.125 (20). 58.
Hans, P.H. (1983) The growth and influence of the alumni movement on the
governance of four private colleges: Willaims, Union, Hamilton, and Amherst,
1821-1925. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at
Buffalo.
Harrison, W. B. & Mitchell, S.K. (1995) Alumni donations and colleges’
development expenditures: Does spending matter? American Journal of Economics
& Sociology. 54 (14). 396-412.
Hirshfield, A. (1999) Money for something. Sport,.84.
Hueston, F. R. (1992) Predicting alumni giving: a donor analysis test. Fund
Raising Management. 23. (5). 18-22.
Johnson, R. S., & Danehy, Mary. (1999) How one college program runs the
business. FORTUNE. 8-25.
Kalita, S. M. (1998) Rutgers’ new athletic director plans to tie marketing,
academics, Sports, Daily Targum.
Koch, J.V. (1973) Intercollegiate athletics: an economic explanation.
Social Science Quarterly. 360-374.
Kuhn, J. (1991) Stewardship returns dividends; building friends for your
athletic department takes personal efforts, Coaching Volleyball. (Dec/Jan).
Leslie, L.L., & Ramey, J. (1988) Donor behavior and voluntary support for
higher education institutions, Journal of Higher Education. 59 (2).l 15-132.
84
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(1988) Enhancing a College’s Fund Raising Ability. ERIC Digest
ED308799 HE 022930.
Lively, K. (2000) Giving to higher education breaks another record. The
Chronicle of Higher Education.46 (35). A41(2).
Looney, D. (2000) The web gives charity a sporting chance online shopping
taps alumni philanthropy and the old college team. The Christian Science Monitor.
(June 1).
Loughton, J. (1993) The fundamentals of cultivation and solicitation. Parks
& Recreation December. 38-43.
McCallum, J. (1990). And Many Happy Returns: Athletes could earn
goodwill by giving back some loot. Sports Illustrated. Nov.5. 178
Mercer, J. (1996) Fund raisers differ on the value of statistics showing the
percentage of alumni who give. The Chronicle of Higher Education. 42. (44). A3 3-
34.
________ (1997) Private giving to colleges increased 11.8% in 1996,
reaching $ 14.2-billion. The Chronicle of Higher Education.43(38). A41(2).
Miller, M. T. (1993) Historical Perspectives on the development of academic
fund raising, Journal of Instructional Psychology. 20 (3). 237-242.
Moffatt, M. (1991) College life: undergraduate culture and higher education
Journal of Higher Education.62(l). 44-61.
McDiarmid, J. (1995) The New Generation of Fund Raisers, Fund Raising
Management. July. 46-48.
NCAA (2001) 2000-2001 NCAA Division I Manual: Constitution,
Operating Bylaws, Administrative Bylaws, Indianapolis: Indiana.
Opdyke, J. D. (2000) An athletic arms race: it’s bigger, better stadiums for
schools aiming to add revenue, lure recruits. The Wall Street Journal. PB1(W) p.
B 1(E) col 2 (15 col in). Pennington, A. (1996) Fund Raising and Sports, Fund
Raising Management. Feb. 20-25.
Prentice, D. (1997) The student-athlete, Presentation for Princeton
University’s 250th Anniversary Simposium.
85
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Renick, J. (1974) The Use and Misuse of College Athletics. Journal of
Higher Education. 65 (7).
Rhoads, T. A. & Gerking, S. (2000) Educational Contributions, academic
quality, and athletic success. Contemporary Economic Polcv.l8(2). 248-265.
Selig, C.W. (1999) A study of donor predictability among alumni athletes at
the university of Virginia. Doctoral Dissertaion for the university of Virginia.
Serwer, A. & Webb, C. (1998) Put Me In Coach. FORTUNE. 138 (12). 186-
193.
Shulman, J. L., & Bowen, W. G. (2000) The Game of Life: College Sports
and Educational Values, Princeton University Press: Princeton.
Sigelman, L. & Carter, R. (1979) Win one for the giver? alumni giving and
big-time college sports. Social Science Quarterly. 60 (2) 284-294.
Sigelman, L. & Bookheimer, S. (1983) Is it whether you win or lose?
Monetary contributions to big-time college athletic programs. Social Science
Quarterly 64(2).347-359.
Starks, J. (1989) Student goals for colleges and courses: a missing link in
assessing and improving academic achievement: ERIC DIGEST.
St. John, E. (2000) Gifted & Giving. Black Issues in Higher Education
17(5). 16.
Tsiotsou, R. (19) Motivations for donation to athletic programs. The Cvber-
Joumal of Sport Marketing. 2 (3).
Vemer, E. (1996, Spring) Developing women as financial donors and
philanthropists: a way to enhance intercollegiate athletics opportunities. Women in
Sport and Physical Activity Journal. 5 (1). 27-49.
86
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix A
QUESTIONNAIRE
Aps__
Sport: .............
I) Mtrital item s
P lr« (ie« s Marl. all that ,tpply in t » agptoptiafc tex.
iiMfcij:,.
G aU qps
■ a) Sipjgtc
j k Singtejiyui with partner
«i if. i ■
d| Scjuratcd
e) Dh arced
2) What J » jm w aiiiiai iKwttie?
Less its® WJflw
s\ 2LOCKMO,«»
j j 41JQ M 0J»
el si jat-fijoa
ft More than id y O O Q
3)Wh»t w** Ike t e l fear «f ©»Ife§e you coisptatedf i) W tat was p r wll«§t grada m *n®e?
a I f rcihman
i K ) Sopte
i e| lailor
dt "& » » (< !
cl C irsiiustcvi
i ft Graduate Kelvxil
SJ At what atkfcis ifc b ta dM fm
iMarte applil
ptitt
1 si ll€AA;P^^Wt Ik
| I) M C A A . Bivjsini; t-AA
[ t f j > MCAA BiyMon II
. * z. z"".............z i
f ft Otter
■ 4 —
1) IFjou **cre t« giie l» j,«»r aim# ratler,
, *« > »hflg» wouldy m i gr* e ? _____
1 Academic Hepaftrtant _ ^ ___
A tW rtic A d m in istratio n______________~ ____,
Academic Advisor _ _ f __J
Coach _ i j
1 ‘ rnfcsM tr _ , _ ,
t ith rr I
i Attend eojkge?___
ltr,)C w < a* fn> m college ' __________
f l S f t'c an academic jtcteitnm hirt?___
[Rjgeeive an male tit. 'ichsA iandii^* _ _ _
I Gists § dteafai of more (ten t f f to liself slata
| a) A or Ai (Extraordinary Quiitfl
' b) A * (Supmor Quality)
I s i 1+ (& w c 6 i iS iiy )
N I B CVscyOiodOSiitvi
: t) »- (Good Quality)
! ft 6+ (flw e Awtiite OSftlitt)
if i
I ti) C* (Below .M'magg Quality)
; i) Dor lower (PoorQuality)
S) App»*i*»afc% tew much i d yo« contribute W
charitable wgpmtettea* fatt year?
8ftS«*
W25.9fi-I0ffl.06
u i t m i
dj $00.01-1,000.00
_
t) 1,000.00-5,000,00
ft 5,000- 10,0(K M »
« > 10,000.00- and up
8) What could a college do to better enable
M s* ristmnli to glwe ime k f __
If) Teach eutTOtlaudcflts about giving bock
m h lg l« j|E _ |ig m » g ^ ^
' Cw raig alumni fowccial donate pages
< ft Mail f i t ntowtatfca
e) iithcr (comment)
Wether U p ita T
— —
87
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Section 1: Circle the appropriate answer for each question
In the past 12 months, has your alma mater contacted you and requested that you make a charitable
donation? • _________ _______________ ..........................
Would you consider making a living mist become an endowed scholarship for your alma mater?__
Would you be inclined to give to your alma mater if it user! your donalwrt for scholarships?
W ould you be inclined to give to your akmmater if ii used your donation for facilities?
My coaches or athletic administrators explained to me where my scholarship came from
Did an athletic administrator attend your "outside of athletics" collegiate events (i.e. graduation)?
Did your alMctie department sponsor ntm-relulod athletic events {i.e. academic ceremonies)?
Do you have a will, formal v e il estate plan or living trust?
Would you attend a charitable event at your college?
Yes
Yes
M o
No
Yes No
Yes M o
Yes No
Yes Mo
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Section 2 ; Check the statements that best represent why you
give back to your collegiate athletic department
• I f you do MOT give to your college athletic department please explain on the back o f this
sheet
a) S reoeivedan: excellent education
b) I would not have attended college if I did not receive a scholarship
c) I received a partial scholarship
,
___ ...4
d) ! received a full scholarship
cl I started almost every jtaux: '
1 ) I was the captain of my team
g S M y bead coach was an excellent coach
h) M y position coach was an excellent couch
i) We won most or all of our games
j) The athletic department provided me with academic support
k) The athletic department attended al 1 or most of my competitions
1 ) M y professors encouraged me to be successful in everything I attempted
m) My parents provided me with academic support
it) My parents encouraged me to attend college
o) My parents give to their colleges
p) My parents encourage me to give back to my college
q) M y church encourages me to give back to my community
r) I liked my coach
si l ike inv position coach
i) I liked my teammates
u) 1 liked the aihlaie facilities !
v) My head coach helped rue get t» the NFL
w) My position coach helped me get to the M-'l,
x) My athletic director helped me get to the NFL
v)_My NFL contract requires that 1 give back to my college
/) The athletic tlcpaftmcnt provided tny sport with excellent, travel aewmmodalions
88
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix B
NCAA CONSTITUTION
Article 1 Name, Purpose and Fundamental Policy
Article 2 Principles for Conduct of Intercollegiate Athletics
Article 3 NCAA Membership
Article 4 Organization
Article 5 Legislation Authority and Process
Article 6 Institutional Control
Operating Bylaws
Article 10 Ethical Conduct
Article 11 Conduct and Employment of Athletics Personnel
Article 12 Amateurism
Article 13 Recruiting
Article 14 Eligibility: Academic General Requirements
Article 15 Financial Aid
Article 16 Awards, Benefits and Expenses for Enrolled Student-Athletes
Article 17 Playing and Practice Seasons
Article 18 Championships and Postseason Football
Article 19 Enforcement
Article 20 Division Membership
Article 21 Committees
Article 22 Football Television Plans and Regulations
Article 23 Athletics Certification
Administrative Bylaws
Article 30 Administrative Regulations
Article 31 Executive Regulations
Article 32 Enforcement Policies and Procedures
Article 33 Athletics Certification Policies and Procedures
89
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix C
PURPOSE OF THE NCAA
• To initiate, stimulate and improve intercollegiate athletics programs for student-
athletes and to promote and develop educational leadership, physical fitness,
athletic excellence and athletics participation as a recreational pursuit
• To uphold the principle of institutional control of, and responsibility for, all
intercollegiate sports in conformity with the constitution and bylaws of the
Association
• To encourage its members to adopt eligibility rules to comply with satisfactory
standards of scholarships, sportsmanship and amateurism
• To formulate, copyright and publish rules of play governing intercollegiate
athletics
• To preserve intercollegiate athletics records
• To supervise the conduct of, and to establish eligibility standards for, regional
and national athletics events under the auspices of the Association
• To legislate, through bylaws or by resolutions of a Convention, upon any subject
of general concern to the members related to the administration of intercollegiate
athletics.
To study in general all phases of competitive intercollegiate athletics that establish
standards whereby the colleges and universities of the United States can maintain
their athletics programs on a high level.
90
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix D
NCAA BYLAW 14
14.3.1.1 Qualifier
All student-athletes are required to complete a described number of specific courses
in addition to attaining a proper scholastic aptitude test score. A qualifier is defined
as one who is a high-school graduate and who presented the following academic
qualifications: (Revised: 1/10/92 effective 8/1/95)
(a) A minimum cumulative grade-point average as specified in Bylaw
14.3.1.1.1 (based on a maximum 4.000) in a successfully completed core
curriculum of at least 13 academic courses per Bylaw 14.3.1.2, including
the following:
l-'m ilisli 1 Revised: l/l(i cffccme N I 'K i) 4 years
Mathematics ft wo vears of mathematics courses at the level of Aleebra I or
higher) (Revised: 1/16/93 effective 8/1/96; Revised: 1/11/94 effective
8/1/96; Revised: 1/11/00 effective 8/1/00 for those student-athletes first
entering a collegiate institution on or after 8/1/00)
2 years
Natural or uhvsical science fincludine at least one laboratory course if
offered by the high school)
2 years
Additional courses in English. mathematics, or natural or D hvsical science
(Revised: 1/16/93 effective 8/1/96)
1 year
Social science 2 years
Additional academic cou rses T in anv of the above areas or foreien
language, computer science, philosophy or nondoctrinal religion (e.g.,
comparative religion) courses]
2 years
The record of the above courses and course grades must be certified by the
initial-eligibility clearinghouse using an official high-school transcript or
official correspondence forwarded directly from the high school or upon a
high-school transcript forwarded by an institution’s admissions office, and
(Revised: 2/9/95)
91
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(b) A minimum combined score on the SAT verbal and math sections or a
minimum sum score on the ACT as specified in Bylaw 14.3.1.1.1. The
required SAT or ACT score must be achieved under national testing
conditions on a national testing date [i.e., no residual (campus) testing or
regional testing dates]. (Revised: 1/10/90, 1/10/92, 1/16/93)
Length of Participation
All student-athletes are afforded four years of competition within a five-year span
beginning with full-time enrollment.
14.2.1 Five-Year Rule
A student-athlete shall complete his or her seasons of participation within five
calendar years from the beginning of the semester or quarter in which the student-
athlete first registered for a minimum full-time program of studies in a collegiate
institution, with time spent in the armed services, on official church missions or with
recognized foreign aid sendees of the U.S. government being excepted. For foreign
students, service in the armed forces or on an official church mission of the student’s
home country is considered equivalent to such service in the United States.
2.0 Grade Point Average
All student-athletes must be in good academic standing; interpreted at most
institutions as a cumulative grade point average of a 2.0.
92
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
14.01.1 Institutional Responsibility
An institution shall not permit a student-athlete to represent it in intercollegiate
athletics competition unless the student-athlete meets all applicable eligibility
requirements.
14.01.2 Academic Status
To be eligible to represent an institution in intercollegiate athletics competition, a
student-athlete shall be enrolled in at least a minimum full-time program of studies,
be in good academic standing and maintain satisfactory progress toward a
baccalaureate or equivalent degree. A waiver of the minimum full-time enrollment
requirement may be granted for a student enrolled in the final term of the
baccalaureate program (see Bylaw 14.1.6.2.1.3). Also, a student may represent the
institution while enrolled as a graduate or professional student or while enrolled and
seeking a second baccalaureate degree at the same institution (see Bylaw 14.1.7).
14.01.2.1 Good Academic Standing
To be eligible to represent an institution in intercollegiate athletics competition, a
student-athlete shall be in good academic standing as determined by the academic
authorities who determine the meaning of such phrases for all students of the
institution, subject to controlling legislation of the conference(s) or similar
association of which the institution is a member. (Note: The restrictions, exceptions
and waivers set forth in Bylaws 14.4.3.4.4, 14.4.3.4.5 and 14.4.3.7 also apply to the
general requirement for good academic standing and satisfactory progress.)
93
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Matriculation Percentages 25%. 50%. 75%
Student athletes are required to complete 25% of their total degree prior to entering
their third year of college, 50% entering their fourth year, and 75% entering their
fifth year. This rule does not take into consideration change of major or pre
requisites. This rule often forces students to “major in eligibility” rather than the
major of their choice.
14.4.3.2 Fulfillment o f Percentage o f Degree Requirements
A student-athlete who is entering his or her third year of collegiate enrollment shall
have completed successfully at least 25 percent of the course requirements in the
student’s specific degree program. A student-athlete who is entering his or her fourth
year of collegiate enrollment shall have completed successfully at least 50 percent of
the course requirements in the student’s specific degree program. A student-athlete
who is entering his or her fifth year of collegiate enrollment shall have completed
successfully at least 75 percent of the course requirements in the student’s specific
degree program. The course requirements must be in the student’s specific degree
program (as opposed to the student’s major). (Adopted: 1/10/92 effective 8/1/92,
Revised: 1/9/96)
Minimum units attained during an academic school year 75%. 25%
This rule requires students to complete 75% of their units during the school year and
limits their summer school eligibility units to 25 percent. For example, students on
94
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the quarter system must pass 36 units per school year; 24 per semester. This rule
permits a student to complete a minimum of 27 units during a school year with a
maximum of 9 units for eligibility during the summer. Therefore, should a student
only pass 26 units during the school year, the student would not be eligible for the
fall term regardless of how many units they enrolled in during the summer session.
14.4.3.1.3 Hours Earned during Regular Academic Year
A student-athlete shall earn at least 75 percent of the minimum number of semester
or quarter hours required for satisfactory progress during the regular academic year.
The student-athlete shall earn no more than 25 percent of the minimum number of
semester or quarter hours required for satisfactory progress during the summer or
through correspondence courses taken during the 1993-94 academic year and
thereafter. (Adopted: 1/10/92 effective 8/1/92 for credit hours earned during the
1992-93 academic year and thereafter, Revised: 1/11/94)
95
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix E
QUESTION #7 AND #8 OPEN ENDED RESPONSES
If you were to give to your alma mater, to whom would you give?
Team
Unrestricted
Drug and Alcohol Education Service Learning
None (non-athlete)
Athletic Trainers (trainer)
Specific Sport Program
Residence Life
What could a college do to better enable it’s alumni to give back?
USC does a great job.
My school does a good job
My university does a superb job at this.
The public schools (U.C.) are very unskilled
Positive Experience
Work to create a more positive experiences for its athletes, overall
Create a more positive experience for current student-athletes.
Treat undergrads with respect and not just “kids”.
Provide positive experiences for the undergraduate students.
Build relationships with students and provide quality experience
while in school.
Special Events/Programs
Halls of Fame
Specific Programs for Donations
Alumni games-CSUF baseball program has great success with this
event.
Invite alumni back to witness improvements, meet new staff, hold
a small reception.
These events tend to influence behavior.
Involve alumni in special events, ex-football game, relays.
Have mentor program so once you have graduated you are still
connected which enhance contributions- this could be done even if
you are out of state.
Phone-a-thons
Create programs that could positively effect the community. Not
build fancy parking garages.
96
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Involvement
Keep them involved in what’s happening at University. Don’t just
call them when they need money.
Be more inclusive of all alumni groups, not just those with the most
money.
Let alumni know more about what’s going on-nut just yearly
publications (or biannual).
Recognize donors better
Just keep alumni involved-invite alums to participate in events or
keynote speakers, judges, officials.
Make me really feel connected to the university through one on
one attention
Personalized phone calls
Create; print and mail information on specific sports programs-
help alleviate fundraising pressure from coach.
Educate
Educate current students about traditions of university and use
testimonies of current students who would not be able to attend
college except for generosity of alumni donors
97
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix F
OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES OF GIVERS AND NON-GIVERS
Givers
I believe in the athletics experience and what it provides to women. I want to
provide the same opportunities to current students
I want another young person to have a quality experience in college while
participating in collegiate athletics.
• Good low-keyed - “proper-philosophy” athletic program
I give because I am in the field-I know how little support (money) there is for
athletics in most schools. I also give because the facilities are run down and
there are no scholarships - 1 would like to see that change at my alma mater.
I didn’t play at Cal Poly so I don’t donate to that athletic program. I do
however donate to my high school program, Saint Augustine HS in New
Orleans (1997 Champs!)
■ I WANT OTHERS TO HAVE THE SAME OPPORTUNITY I HAD
To help others obtain an education and have a good, solid collegiate
experience
Non-Givers
Not Financially Able
I have not had the financial freedom to be able to give back to my alma
mater.
I do not give back to my college athletic department. Only recently have I
been in a position to give back. I have never considered giving back to the
school I played at since I did not graduate from there. I transferred to another
school!
Not established financially to give at this time. However, when able, I will
donate to cultural based university programs first, in an effort to encourage
more outreach to minority student-athletes.
Financially, I have not been able to give back. To be honest, I’d be more
likely to give back to my grad program-and their athletic department.
I have not donated to my school because I have not had the available funds.
My parents do donate to the fund at MO.
Can’t afford to give money back!
Never Asked
The athletic department has never asked me for a contribution. The college
has asked for a donation and I have made tow or three. If the athletic
department asked me for a contribution, I would make one.
98
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
I have not been asked to give back in sometime. Also, I have not been in the
financial position to contribute money. But there are many reasons why I
would if I were able. Currently if I could, I wouldn’t because I don’t like the
current administration.
Never was asked for anything from the department. Also, can’t afford it.
The athletic department has never asked me for a contribution. The college
has asked for a donation and I have made tow or three. If the athletic
department asked me for a contribution, I would make one.
I am not sure if I have ever been contacted. In addition, I have not been in a
position to financially contribute until now. Therefore, I have not given in
the past.
■ Not been asked
No athletically related contact after graduation
I’ve never been contacted. Also my institution has committed many
violations. Until that is resolved and restructured to abide regulations, I
cannot support that athletic program.
Others
My tax money goes to fund this state institution and I don’t receive a voucher
or tax deduction to pay for my daughters private school. If the university
could do something to enhance the quality of the substandard PG county
public schools, then I would consider donating. I have seen them do no more
than build new buildings. Football and basketball alone generate enough
money to fund other programs.
Do not give. My money all goes to my family right now
Why should I?
I do not give back to my alma mater because I have grown to disagree with
the religious doctrine that they teach. I have other personal reasons for not
gibing back as well, but they come down to a basic difference in beliefs.
Attending a Liberal Arts institution and they were very hypocritical
(Administration)
My school actually turned me off when they fired my coach and his staff. It
was the way they went about it. That turned a lot of people off.
I wasn’t happy with the UH Athletic program and I would not give a
donation to the Athletic Department. I would give money for community
education but not Athletics.
When I have inquired in the past about giving directly to my program, I was
told I couldn’t specify. It discouraged me from giving. After this survey and
knowing that the system has probably changes, I will reinvestigate the best
way for me to donate to my school and athletic program.
I have my own organization to help students!
Paid for college-give to other charities.
99
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
DIII-Marginai experience-out of touch with school, program, etc.
Lower level experience other giving priorities
In many of the questions you assume that the athlete received a scholarship. I
was a walk-on.
100
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Academic success and student-parents in the Los Angeles Community College District
PDF
"Home boy" to "school boy": Inside the PowerBuilders Workshops at CSULA. A qualitative examination of access, mobility, and leadership qualities of minorities in higher education
PDF
Academic, environmental and social integration variables that maximize transfer preparedness for Latino community college students: An application of academic success models to the study of Tran...
PDF
Evaluating the California Community Colleges Registry
PDF
International students: Patterns of success
PDF
A study of the profile and leadership traits of vice presidents of instruction in the California community college system
PDF
Examining the factors that predict the academic success of minority students in the remedial mathematics pipeline in an urban community college
PDF
A study of the Navy College Program for Afloat College Education: Implications for teaching and learning among nontraditional college students
PDF
Faculty characteristics: What are their relationships with academic outcomes of community college students?
PDF
An evaluation of select athletic training education programs administration and educational structure
PDF
China's critical educational access demand and United States higher education distance learning curriculum: An answer?
PDF
Community college students: The effect of parenthood and selected variables on degree -seeking aspirations
PDF
A comparative analysis of mandated cost reimbursements in California school districts
PDF
Community college English courses: The road less traveled by community college students
PDF
Implementation of literature circles in a rural high school English class: One teacher's journey of changing student attitudes toward reading
PDF
Factors influencing academic success of Chinese international students in Los Angeles community colleges
PDF
Exploring ethnic identity on a university campus: Filipino American students' perspectives
PDF
Associate degree nursing students' perceptions of caring ability, parental care and nursing school climate: A quantitative and qualitative study of caring links among first semester nursing stud...
PDF
Achievement and retention of first-semester nursing students: The effects of a study skills course
PDF
Increasing graduate success on the CAT version of the NCLEX -RN
Asset Metadata
Creator
Filardo, Camille Elizabeth
(author)
Core Title
Alumni student -athletes' attitudes towards educational philanthropy
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Education, Finance,OAI-PMH Harvest
Language
English
Contributor
Digitized by ProQuest
(provenance)
Advisor
Hagedorn, Linda Serra (
committee chair
), Picus, Lawrence O. (
committee member
), Sundt, Melora (
committee member
)
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-480919
Unique identifier
UC11340162
Identifier
3133266.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-480919 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
3133266.pdf
Dmrecord
480919
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Filardo, Camille Elizabeth
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 au...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA
Tags
Education, Finance