{"id":6437,"date":"2019-05-16T10:15:43","date_gmt":"2019-05-16T15:15:43","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/?p=6437"},"modified":"2019-05-16T10:17:09","modified_gmt":"2019-05-16T15:17:09","slug":"stakeholder-evaluation-of-the-policy-effects-of-university-decisions-regarding-athletics","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/stakeholder-evaluation-of-the-policy-effects-of-university-decisions-regarding-athletics\/","title":{"rendered":"Stakeholder Evaluation of the Policy Effects of University Decisions Regarding Athletics"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Authors:<\/strong> Brad Stinnett1<\/sup>, Scott Lasley2<\/sup>, and Josh Knight2<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

1<\/sup>School of Kinesiology, Recreation & Sport, Western Kentucky University, United States
2<\/sup>Department of Political Science, Western Kentucky University, United States<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Corresponding Author:<\/strong>
Dr. Brad Stinnett
Western Kentucky University
1906 College Heights Blvd. #11089
Bowling Green, KY 42101
Phone: 270.745.4329
E-mail: brad.stinnett@wku.edu<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Stakeholder\nEvaluation of the Policy Effects of University Decisions Regarding Athletics<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

ABSTRACT<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

At public universities across the country, key\nstakeholders see intercollegiate athletics as a mechanism to raise the profile\nof their institution. Specifically, many universities have identified\nmoving up in level of athletic competition as one part of a strategy to enhance\na school\u2019s visibility and reputation. Like all decisions made by public\ninstitutions, these are policy choices made by public officials that have\nconsequences for institutions of higher education. The purpose of this\nstudy was to explore the attitudes of two stakeholder groups (faculty and\nstaff) at a Southern regional public university that has made the transition\nfrom the Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) to the Football Bowl\nSubdivision (FBS). Specifically, this study examined and compared how key\nstakeholders evaluate the decision to move from the FCS to FBS level of\ncompetitions. An electronic survey was administered to university faculty and\nstaff to collect data on their attitudes relative to intercollegiate athletics.\nAggregate faculty and staff evaluations of the transition from FCS to FBS\nfootball and other strategic changes to athletics were compared to each other.  Additionally, faculty and staff opinions on the\nemphasis placed on academics, athletics, and the arts at the university were explored.\nResults indicate that staff generally view the impact of transitioning to the\nFBS level more favorably than faculty. Additional findings reveal that faculty,\nmore so than staff, feel that too much emphasis is placed on athletics. This\nstudy draws attention to the apparent division that exists on how faculty and\nstaff view decisions made regarding athletics. This divide between faculty and\nstaff relating to decisions and outcomes can make policy questions involving\nathletics difficult to address. This study can help shape future research on\nuniversity athletics and how it influences higher education policy. University\nadministrators, such as directors of athletics, can utilize the findings for\nmore effective decision making and to build a bridge with key constituents such\nas faculty and staff. <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Keywords<\/strong>: athletics, intercollegiate,\npolicy, stakeholders<\/p>\n\n\n\n

INTRODUCTION<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

While many\nAmericans view college athletics primarily as entertainment, it is becoming\nincreasingly clear that decisions made by American universities regarding their\nathletics programs should be viewed as policy decisions that impact a wide\nrange of stakeholders.  Decisions made by\nregents, presidents, and athletic directors in governing university athletic\nprograms not only impact on field performance, but also affect the bottom line\nof universities and influence strategic priorities.  The consequences of these decisions will\nimpact coaches and student-athletes. Additionally, the significance of these\npolicy outcomes will be felt by other stakeholders including students, faculty,\nand the general public.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Over the past two\ndecades, major college athletics has emerged as big business.  The National Collegiate Athletic Association\n(NCAA) has a contract with CBS and Turner Broadcasting that runs through 2032\nand will ultimately be worth over a billion dollars per year towards the end of\nthe agreement (24). ESPN is in the midst of the twelve year contract to\nbroadcast the College Football Playoffs for more than $7 billion (20).  Major power conferences like the Big Ten and\nthe Southeastern Conference have established their own cable networks to\ngenerate additional revenue for their member institutions.  Six universities feature college sports\nprograms that generated over $150 million of revenue for the 2015-16 year (25).  As the profile of and money associated with\ncollege athletics has increased, more schools seek to receive their share of\nthe attention and revenues associated with big time college sports.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

From 1987 through 2016,\n28 football programs made the transition from Football Championship Subdivision\n(FCS and formerly Division I-AA) to the more prestigious Football Bowl\nSubdivision (FBS and formerly Division I-A). \nProponents of moving up to FBS level of competition cite a number of\nreasons for the transition including increased exposure and prestige for the\nuniversity. In a study of colleges and universities that recently added\nfootball at their institution, Kelly & Dixon (9) found that universities\nview football as a mechanism for building a sense of community and increasing\nthe institutional value of their respective school.  It is common for advocates to highlight how\nan increased stature for athletics will enhance the academic side of the\nuniversity as well. Appalachian State University viewed a move to FBS football\nas promoting the University\u2019s efforts to be a nationally prominent institution\n(2).  Georgia\nSouthern University identified the transition to FBS as a milestone to help\nreach the goal of national recognition (8). At least rhetorically, there is\nevidence that university leaders see decisions regarding college athletics as\npart of a strategic process to achieve desired institutional and policy\noutcomes.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

While administrators and other proponents of college athletics frequently cite what a vibrant college sports program can do for a university, there are plenty of critics that are skeptical of the benefits that athletics have for a school. Critics cite high costs associated with college sports and question university priorities (11). Costs affiliated with running successful athletics programs have increased appreciably and place significant budgetary pressure on institutions to cover those costs (12). Compounding challenges facing transitioning schools is the reality that there is a large variation in revenues generated by FBS athletics departments.  A quick analysis of college sports finances reveals a significant difference between the revenues and expenses of schools who participate in one of the NCAA designated autonomy governance conferences (Atlantic Coast Conference, Big Ten Conference, Big 12 Conference, Pac-12 Conference, and Southeastern Conference), versus members of non-autonomy governance conferences (American Athletic Conference, Conference USA, Mid-American Conference, Mountain West Conference, Sun Belt Conference). Almost all transitional football programs end up as members of the non-autonomy conferences (also known as Group of Five conferences) and ultimately end up in the lower half of programs when it comes to revenues and expenses (13).  Although advancement in competition level often leads to greater revenues, additional expenses to support the higher level of competition typically outpace the growth in revenue (7).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The financial impact of decisions related to university athletics is particularly salient at a time when public institutions of higher education are receiving lower levels of state support.  Since 2008, only a handful of states have seen an increase in funding for higher education when adjusted for inflation, while half of the states have seen a decline in funding of 20% or more (17). Declining state support has led to higher tuition for students and widespread cuts across many universities. When institutions make policy decisions to increase budgets in intercollegiate athletics, students frequently pick up the tab by means of additional fees. Student concerns about increased costs are expressed in their responses to surveys. Students that do not support the school\u2019s transition up in football generally indicate that costs associated with the transition are the primary source of opposition (3).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The aforementioned has focused primarily on strategic decisions made by universities regarding football. The competition level in football is just one of many choices made by institutions related to athletics that have policy outcomes for its stakeholders. University leaders routinely make decisions related to athletics facilities and personnel that affect the rest of the campus.  Redd (21) reported on the \u201carms race\u201d in college athletics and the notion that there\u2019s little chance of it slowing despite the questions on spending, particularly from faculty. Another common practice is for universities to add or drop individual sports. These decisions not only have budgetary impacts, but also influence the ability of the university to comply with federal law, in particular Title IX.  Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore the attitudes of two stakeholder groups (faculty and staff) at a Southern regional public university (Western Kentucky University) that has made the transition from FCS to FBS football within the past 15 years.  This exploratory study attempted to answer the following two primary research questions:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

  1. How\ndo faculty attitudes on the transition to FBS football and other changes\nregarding athletics compare with those held by staff?<\/li>
  2. How\ndo faculty and staff evaluate university priorities and how much emphasis is\nplaced on athletics, academics, and the arts?<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    Background<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Western Kentucky\nUniversity (WKU) is a public four-year comprehensive institution located in\nBowling Green, Kentucky.  With an\nenrollment of over 17,000 undergraduates, it is the largest four-year\ncomprehensive institution in Kentucky (26). \nIn 2006, the Board of Regents voted to make the transition from FCS to\nFBS football.  The transition was part of\na broader strategic effort by President Gary Ransdell to raise the profile of\nthe University (23).  The move was\ngenerally supported by students, but opposed by faculty.  In a poll conducted by the WKU Student Government\nAssociation, 65% of students supported moving up a level of competition, while\n65% of faculty were opposed to the proposal in a campus wide vote.  The first season that WKU football competed\nat the FBS level was in 2009.  Since the\ndecision to move to FBS level of competition was made in 2006, WKU made several\nadditional changes to the athletics program. \nA decision to discontinue the men\u2019s soccer program was made in\n2008.  In 2014, WKU switched conferences\nfrom the Sun Belt to Conference USA.  The\nmen\u2019s tennis program was eliminated and, in 2015, the men\u2019s and women\u2019s\nswimming and diving programs were suspended for five years.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    As these changes were\ntaking place within the Department of Athletics, WKU was operating in a\nchallenging economic environment shared by many public institutions across the\ncountry.  Adjusted for inflation, public\nspending on higher education in Kentucky dropped by 32% between 2008 and 2016 (17).  Enrollment growth fell short of projections\nwhich helped lead to annual budget deficits that have had to be addressed on an\nannual basis.  Moving forward, WKU faces\nannual budget shortfalls of over $10 million. \nFor perspective, the Department of Athletics received about $4,000,000\nin student fees for the 2015-16 academic year and approximately $13 million\ndollars in school funds to cover expenses. \nFinance trends for WKU reflect the experiences of many other athletics\nprograms that made the transition from FCS to FBS football.  Revenues produced by WKU Athletics have more\nthan doubled since 2006, but so has the amount of school funds needed to cover\nathletics expenditures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    METHODS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    This section presents the methodology employed to conduct the study. Overviews of the research design, participants, instrument, procedures, and data analysis are included. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Research Design<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    This study concentrated on faculty and staff from WKU, using convenience sampling, and utilized a case study research technique. The case study approach is a form of descriptive research and can be used in studies involving institutions. Andrew, Pedersen, and McEvoy (1) define a case study as an exploratory research technique used in sport management to intensively investigate a situation.  An electronic survey was administered to collect data on faculty and staff attitudes relative to intercollegiate athletics. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Participants<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Since the intent of the research revolved around faculty and staff attitudes toward intercollegiate athletics, all full-time faculty and staff at WKU served as the population of interest for this study. Participant contact information was secured via a university maintained list and loaded into a database. Participants were sent an invitation e-mail to participate in the study followed by additional correspondence. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    It is fairly common to survey faculty on their thoughts and attitudes towards intercollegiate athletics at multiple levels of competition (6,14,15,19,22). Lewinter, et al. (16) surveyed staff at the University of North Carolina following a recent academic scandal that impacted athletes at the school.  The current study differs from most previous survey research of university faculty and staff because of the specific focus on how WKU faculty and staff evaluate decisions made by University administration regarding athletics at the institution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Instrument<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    As suggested by Dillman (4), the faculty\/staff survey was created in collaboration with an array of professionals well-versed in the areas of higher education and intercollegiate athletics. This practice also provided the instrument with face validity. Sections within the survey strived to collect data on attitudes related to WKU as an institution, Title IX knowledge, interest and involvement levels in WKU Athletics and sports in general, and some basic demographic information. The survey consisted of 73 questions structured with various answer types such as Likert-scales, slider bars, and multiple choice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Procedures<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Many specific procedures were used during the data collection stage of the study. The electronic survey was created and administered by using the Qualtrics online research software. The survey link was sent to all faculty and staff at WKU and accompanied by an invitation e-mail, an implied informed consent, and thorough instructions on how to complete and submit the survey. A reminder e-mail was sent to participants that had not completed the survey two weeks after deployment.  As an incentive to participate, participants were able to enter a drawing to receive one of 10 gift cards from the University bookstore.    <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The Institutional Review Board at WKU analyzed and approved the study. All required protocols were properly followed throughout the research project. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Data Analysis<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Upon completion of the survey, data collected through Qualtrics was downloaded and imported into IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 24. For this particular study, two sets of questions were analyzed.  For each set, SPSS was used to compare aggregate responses from faculty and staff for each question.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    RESULTS AND DISCUSSION<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Surveys were completed by 582 faculty and staff, resulting in a response rate of approximately 30%. Of the 582 respondents, 275 (47%) were faculty and 307 (53%) were staff.  For this survey, staff members serve a dual role.  First, staff members are key stakeholders at American universities and are directly impacted by policies established by university leaders.  Second, staff members can serve as a general proxy for the broader community in which the university is located. University employees provide a convenient and heterogeneous population for experimental studies and frequently reflect the demographics of the community in which they are found (10).  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Research Question 1<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    WKU faculty and\nstaff were asked whether they agreed with a series of statements related to\nchanges in WKU sports over the past 10 years. \nFour statements focused on the transition from FCS to FBS football,\nwhile four additional statements addressed other changes affecting WKU\nathletics.  These changes included the\ndecisions to discontinue men\u2019s soccer and men\u2019s tennis, the suspension of the\nmen\u2019s and women\u2019s swimming teams, and the move to Conference USA from the Sun\nBelt.  Table 1 illustrates the percentage\nof faculty and staff who agreed with each of the statements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Table 1<\/strong>
    Faculty and Staff Evaluation of the Impact of University Changes Regarding Athletics<\/em><\/p>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
    Change<\/th>\n Faculty
    Agree<\/th>\n     		Staff
    Agree<\/th>\n     		Faculty
    Disagree<\/th>\n     		Staff
    Disagree<\/th>\n <\/tr>\n
    Moving to FBS football had positive impact on WKU as an academic institution\u2026<\/td>\n 34%<\/td>\n 60%<\/td>\n 46%<\/td>\n 18%<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
    Moving to FBS football had a positive impact on athletics\u2026<\/td>\n 49%<\/td>\n 65%<\/td>\n 28%<\/td>\n 14%<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
    Moving to FBS football has increased visibility for WKU as an institution\u2026<\/td>\n 68%<\/td>\n 81%<\/td>\n 18%<\/td>\n 6%<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
    Moving to FBS football has increased pride in working at WKU\u2026<\/td>\n 23%<\/td>\n 41%<\/td>\n 55%<\/td>\n 27%<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
    Moving to the Conference USA has had a positive impact\u2026<\/td>\n 40%<\/td>\n 59%<\/td>\n 23%<\/td>\n 11%<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
    Support the decision to eliminate men\u2019s soccer\u2026<\/td>\n 12%<\/td>\n 15%<\/td>\n 57%<\/td>\n 53%<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
    Support the decision to eliminate men\u2019s tennis\u2026<\/td>\n 12%<\/td>\n 16%<\/td>\n 54%<\/td>\n 49%<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
    Support the decision to suspend the swimming and diving teams\u2026<\/td>\n 42%<\/td>\n 49%<\/td>\n 39%<\/td>\n 32%<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n <\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

     <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    A comparison of faculty and staff levels of agreement, with statements pertaining to the transition to FBS football, shows that staff generally view the impact of the transition more favorably than faculty.  The majority of staff respondents agreed that the transition had a positive impact on WKU as an academic institution and on WKU athletics.  While 60% of staff indicated that the transition had a positive impact on WKU as an academic institution, only 34% percent of faculty agreed with that sentiment.  Slightly less than half of the faculty agreed that the transition has had a positive impact on athletics, although 21% more faculty agreed with that evaluation than disagreed with the statement. While the overall athletics budget has increased significantly over the past decade and the football team has achieved on-field success, two men\u2019s programs have been discontinued, men\u2019s and women\u2019s swimming has been suspended, and the track and field program has seen significant budget cuts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Although higher for staff members, there is agreement across most faculty and staff that moving to FBS football has increased the visibility of WKU as an institution.  This lends at least some credence that a move to FBS football is able to meet at least one strategic objective associated with the transition.  While there is a general consensus that the transition has raised WKU\u2019s visibility, the results are mixed on the effect of the move on the level of pride associated with working at the University.  A fairly substantive percentage of staff (41%) agreed that the move to FBS football increased pride in working at WKU.  This significantly outnumbers the 23% of faculty who agreed with that mindset.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Congruence between faculty and staff attitudes did emerge on recent administrative decisions discontinuing men\u2019s soccer and tennis and the suspension of the swim programs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Only a small minority of faculty\nand staff supported the decisions to drop the men\u2019s soccer and tennis programs.  Unfortunately, the study does not effectively\ntap into reasons why there is broad opposition to the discontinuation of those\nsports.  Based on anecdotal discussions, faculty\nmay attribute some blame for program cuts on increased expenses related to\nmoving up a level in football.  It is\nalso possible that the nature of the discontinued sports might attract sympathy\nof faculty.  Levels of agreement on the\nsuspension of the men\u2019s and women\u2019s swim programs were more evenly split with\nstaff being somewhat more supportive of the decision to suspend the\nprograms.  The five-year suspension of\nthe programs came following accusations of inappropriate behavior and a Title\nIX investigation, but it remains to be seen if the suspension will ultimately\nbe a vehicle to discontinue the programs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Research Question 2<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Respondents were\nalso asked a series of questions related to university priorities and areas of\nemphasis.  Respondents were asked whether\nthe University placed too much, too little, or about the right amount of\nemphasis on athletics, academics, and the arts. \nAs shown in Table 2, very few staff indicated that WKU placed too much\nemphasis on academics or the arts, while almost two-thirds of faculty and half\nof staff indicated that too much emphasis was placed on athletics.  Eighty-two percent of faculty believe that\ntoo little emphasis is placed on academics, while 54% of staff echoed those feelings.  Taken together, faculty are more critical\nthan staff on what the University places emphasis on, but there is a\nsignificant number of both faculty and staff that question strategic priorities\nof the University.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Table 2<\/strong>
    Faculty and Staff Attitudes on Emphasis Placed on Athletics, Academics, and the Arts<\/em><\/p>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n
    Emphasis Area\/Level<\/th>\n Faculty<\/th>\n Staff<\/th>\n <\/tr>\n
    Too much emphasis on athletics\u2026<\/td>\n 67%<\/td>\n 48%<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
    Too little emphasis on academics\u2026<\/td>\n 82%<\/td>\n 54%<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
    Too little emphasis on the Arts\u2026<\/td>\n 55%<\/td>\n 44%<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
    Realize that athletics does not generate positive net revenue\u2026<\/td>\n 61%<\/td>\n 42%<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n <\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

     <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    It is also worth noting that a majority of WKU staff did not know that athletics does not generate enough revenues to cover their expenditures.  While a majority of faculty indicated awareness of that reality, almost 40% of faculty did not know the Department of Athletics operates with an annual shortfall.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Looking at the\nresults, several topics that merit discussion emerge.  First, it is difficult to ignore the gap\nbetween how faculty and staff view decisions made relating to athletics.  Assuming that staff serve as an imperfect\nproxy for the broader public, a fairly wide gulf is likely to exist between\nfaculty and the general public on many of these issues as well.  This makes policy questions related to\nathletics difficult to address because of how differently key constituencies\nview these decisions and outcomes.  A key\nquestion is whether it is possible to close the gap between faculty and other\nstakeholders.  If it is possible to close\nthe gap between key stakeholders, discussions between different stakeholder\ngroups will likely need to begin with a similar set of assumptions and\ninformation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Even with gaps\nbetween faculty and staff beliefs, there is a sense that too much emphasis is placed\non athletics and not enough on academics. \nThis is especially salient at a time where the University, like many\nother schools in similar situations, struggle with declining state support and\nincreasing expenses.  In WKU\u2019s case, the\ninstitution is facing projected budget deficits that are roughly the size of\ninstitutional subsidies to cover athletics expenditures.  The budgetary reality reinforces the gap\nbetween how faculty evaluate athletics when compared to other\nstakeholders.  Since college athletics\nprograms do provide some direct and indirect value to a university, it is\nimportant to continue efforts to define and measure what that value is.  While there are success stories like Gonzaga\nwhere on court success in men\u2019s basketball helped revitalize the school (18),\nother schools like Georgia State and the University of Buffalo deal with\nbudgetary challenges that competing at the highest level of competition brings\n(5,27).  A discussion on what value\nathletics brings an institution and what type of subsidy students are willing\nand should be asked to pay are discussions that need to take place.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    CONCLUSIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    This study can\nserve as a pilot that can help shape future research on university athletics\nand how it influences higher education policy. \nA preliminary analysis of this survey\u2019s results suggests two avenues\nthat are worth pursuing.  First, it will\nbe useful to continue to collect information from other key stakeholder groups\nincluding students and the external community. \nStudents and their families are a key part of the puzzle since they are\nfrequently asked to pick up the tab for rising college costs.  Second, this study provides insights on what\ntypes of questions still need to be explored more fully.  It is important to get a better sense of why\nfaculty end up feeling the way they do on key decisions made by university\nadministrators.  It will also be useful\nto develop survey instruments that will help provide better insights on how to\nvalue college athletics and get a better sense of what they are worth to\ndifferent constituencies.  There is value\nto raising a school\u2019s profile and building a sense of community, the challenge\nis to figure out what it is ultimately worth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    APPLICATIONS IN SPORT<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    This study produced data regarding the effects of university decisions pertaining to intercollegiate athletics. University administrators, primarily directors of athletics, can utilize the findings to aid in decision-making processes and to build a bridge with key constituencies such as faculty and staff. Analyzing findings from this study, such as faculty and staff attitudes regarding changes in athletics, can benefit higher education administrators in a way that does not continue to expand the divide. Additionally, data regarding the evaluation of university priorities and emphasis placed on academics, athletics, and the arts can benefit others, such as policy makers, booster clubs, and potentially community members. Finally, the existing literature of intercollegiate athletics is enhanced by this study assessing faculty and staff attitudes on various issues in the field. Scholars, interested in this area, may discern significance in these findings given the way they help make sense of the topic.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Funding received from a Faculty-Undergraduate Student Engagement (FUSE) grant helped facilitate the study. FUSE grants are designed to support undergraduate students\u2019 intellectual development by fostering active engagement in the areas of research, creative and scholarly activities, and\/or artistic performances. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    REFERENCES<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    1. Andrew, D. P., Pedersen, P. M., & McEvoy, C. D. (2011). Research methods and design in sport management<\/em>. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
      <\/li>
    2. Appalachian State University, Athletics Feasibility Committee on Football. (2011). Final Report on Athletics Football Feasibility Study<\/em>. Retrieved from http:\/\/appstatesports.com\/ news\/2011\/12\/13\/205346161.aspx
      <\/li>
    3. Barnhill, C. R., Palmero, M., & Kim, W. (2016). Students\u2019 perceptions of the benefits and costs of transitioning to FBS football: An exploratory study. Journal of Contemporary Athletics<\/em>, 10<\/em>(2), 73-86.
      <\/li>
    4. Dillman, D. A. (2011). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method-2007 Update with new internet, visual, and mixed-mode guide<\/em>. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
      <\/li>
    5. Dinki, T. (2016, May 2). At UB, recreation has paid price for heavily subsidized college athletics. The Spectrum<\/em>. Retrieved from http:\/\/www.ubspectrum.com\/article\/2016\/05\/at-
      ub-recreation-has-paid-the-price-of-heavily-subsidized-college-athletics
      <\/li>
    6. Feezell, T. (2013). Faculty attitudes toward athletics at NCAA Division II institutions. Journal of Applied Sport Management, 5<\/em>(2).
       <\/li>
    7. Freider, L. L., & Fulks, D. L. (2007). The impact of reclassification from Division II to DI-AA and from Division I-AA to I-A on NCAA member institutions from 1993 to 2003. NCAA Publications<\/em>. Retrieved from http:\/\/www.ncaapublications.com\/productdownloads IMREC03.pdf
      <\/li>
    8. Georgia Southern University. (2013, March 27). Georgia Southern University \u2013 Sun Belt Announcement<\/em> [Video File]. Retrieved from https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=87JYj0s 4NDI
      <\/li>
    9. Kelly, D. & Dixon, M. A. (2011). Becoming a \u201creal university:\u201d The strategic benefit of adding football for NCAA Division I institutions. Journal of Intercollegiate Sport, 4<\/em>(2), 283-303.
      <\/li>
    10. Kelly, D., Vidal, L., & Burden, B. C. (2017). A convenient truth: University employees as heterogeneous and inexpensive experimental samples. Social Science Quarterly, 98<\/em>(5), 1339-1351.
      <\/li>
    11. Kiley, K. (2013). Playing different games. Inside Higher Education<\/em>. Retrieved from https:\/\/www.insidehighered.com\/news\/2013\/01\/16\/universities-spend-more-athletics-athlete-academics-student-report-finds

      <\/li>
    12. Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics (2009a). Quantitative and qualitative
      research with Football Bowl Subdivision university presidents on the costs and
      financing of intercollegiate athletics: Report of findings and implications.

      <\/li>
    13. Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics (2009b). FCS to FBS reclassification considerations <\/em>[White Paper]. Retrieved February 2, 2018, from https:\/\/www.knightcommission.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/05\/fcs_to_fbs_transition_2017_2012.pdf
      <\/li>
    14. Lawrence, J. H.  (2009). Faculty perceptions of intercollegiate athletics. In J. Hoffman, J. Antony, & D. Alfaro (Eds.), Data-driven decision making in intercollegiate athletics<\/em> (pp. 103-112). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
      <\/li>
    15. Lawrence, J., Ott, M., & Hendricks, L. (2009). Athletics reform and faculty perceptions. New Directions for Higher Education, 2009<\/em>(148), 73-81.
      <\/li>
    16. Lewinter, G., Weight, E. A., Osborne, B. & Brunner, J. (2013). A polarizing issue: Faculty and staff perceptions of intercollegiate athletic academics, governance, and finance post-NCAA investigation. Journal of Sport Management, 5<\/em>(4), 73-97.
      <\/li>
    17. Mitchell, M., Leachman, M., & Masterson, K. (2016). Funding down, tuition up: State cuts to higher education threaten quality and affordability at public colleges<\/em>. Retrieved from Center on Budget and Policy Priorities website: https:\/\/www.cbpp.org\/research\/state-budget-and-tax\/funding-down-tuition-up
      <\/li>
    18. O\u2019Neil, D. (2017, March 29). How the basketball program helped Gonzaga University flourish. [Blog post]. Retrieved from http:\/\/www.espn.com\/blog\/collegebasketballnation\/
      post\/_id\/119205\/how-the-basketball-program-helped-gonzaga-university-flourish
      <\/li>
    19. Ott, M. (2011). Faculty satisfaction with intercollegiate athletics. Journal of Intercollegiate Athletics, 4,<\/em> 370-395.
      <\/li>
    20. Ourand, J. & Smith, M. (2012). ESPN homes in on 12-year BCS package. Sport Business Journal. <\/em>Retrieved from https:\/\/www.sportsbusinessdaily.com\/Journal\/Issues\/2012\/11\/12\/ Media\/BCS-ESPN.aspx?hl=BCS&sc=0
      <\/li>
    21. Redd, D. (2018, July 21). College athletics arms race shows no signs of slowing. Charleston Gazette-Mail<\/em>. Retrieved from https:\/\/www.wvgazettemail.com\/sports\/
      columnists\/derek_redd-redd-college-athletic-facility-arms-race-won-t-slow\/article_
      ef1ddcd6-86c0-5493-b143-f5d08fc035be.html
      <\/li>
    22. Sanger, K. L. (2011). NCAA Division III faculty satisfaction with intercollegiate athletics<\/em> (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https:\/\/lib.dr.iastate.edu\/
      <\/li>
    23. Stephens, B. (2017, July 1). Ransdell leaves mark on WKU athletics after 20 years as president. Bowling Green Daily News<\/em>. Retrieved from https:\/\/www.bgdailynews.com\/sports\/wku\/ransdell-leaves-mark-on-wku-athletics-after-years-as-president\/article_6e6e3e4b-42c7-5bde-9cf6-645fd1759fd1.html
      <\/li>
    24. Tracy, M. (2016, April 12). N.C.A.A. extends basketball deal with CBS Sports and Turner through 2032. The New York Times<\/em>. Retrieved from http:\/\/www.nytimes.com<\/a>
      <\/li>
    25. USA Today (2018, June 28). NCAA athletic department revenue database. USA Today<\/em>. Retrieved from http:\/\/sports.usatoday.com\/ncaa\/finances#
      <\/li>
    26. Western Kentucky University (2017). 2017 Fact Book<\/em>. Retrieved from WKU Office of Institutional Research website: https:\/\/www.wku.edu\/instres\/fact_book.php<\/a>
      <\/li>
    27. Wolverton, B., Hallman, B., Shifflett, S., & Kambhampati, S. (2015, November 15). The $10-billion sports tab: How colleges are funding the athletics arms race. The Chronicle of Higher Education<\/em>. Retrieved from https:\/\/www.chronicle.com\/interactives\/ncaa-subsidies-main#id=table_2014 <\/li><\/ol>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      Authors: Brad Stinnett1, Scott Lasley2, and Josh Knight2 1School of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false,"jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_options":[]},"categories":[994,296],"tags":[116,565,1119],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p4btio-1FP","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":2212,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/conflicts-of-interest-in-the-intercollegiate-athletics-management-structure-the-impetus-for-nullification-of-presidential-authority\/","url_meta":{"origin":6437,"position":0},"title":"Conflicts of Interest in the Intercollegiate Athletics Management Structure – The Impetus for Nullification of Presidential Authority","date":"February 9, 2015","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by Corey M. Turner, J.D., Assistant Professor of Business Law* 1* Department of Business, Kingsborough Community College, City University of New York, Brooklyn, New York 11235 Corey M. Turner is an Assistant Professor of Business Law and a member of the campus-wide Athletics Committee at the City University of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":7661,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/division-ii-faculty-perception-and-experience-with-athletic-reform\/","url_meta":{"origin":6437,"position":1},"title":"Division II Faculty Perception and Experience with Athletic Reform","date":"January 8, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Authors: W. Timothy Orr1, and David C. Hughes2 1Department of Sports Science and Wellness, Hampton University, Hampton, VA, USA2Department of Sports Management, Shenandoah University, Winchester, VA, USA Corresponding Author:W. Timothy Orr, EdD200 William R. Harvey DrHampton, VA, 23368william.orr@hamptonu.edu757-632-8152 W. Timothy Orr is an Assistant Professor and Program Coordinator of the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Sport Education"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":273,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/a-history-of-women-in-sport-prior-to-title-ix\/","url_meta":{"origin":6437,"position":2},"title":"A History of Women in Sport Prior to Title IX","date":"March 14, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: Richard C. Bell, Ed.D., J.D. Abstract: Women's opportunities for competitive physical activity were limited in America until Federal Legislation, commonly referred to as Title IX, became law. It required American society to recognize a woman's right to participate in sports on a plane equal to that of men.\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Sports Management"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":492,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/student-athlete-participation-in-intercollegiate-athletic-decision-making-inclusion-through-different-domains-of-governance\/","url_meta":{"origin":6437,"position":3},"title":"Student-Athlete Participation in Intercollegiate Athletic Decision-Making: Inclusion through Different Domains of Governance","date":"April 2, 2013","format":false,"excerpt":"Eric Snyder ABSTRACT This investigation focused on literature related to student-athlete involvement and input in intercollegiate athletic governance.\u00a0 The aim was to develop support for understanding and justifying differences in the level of involvement a student-athlete may have when considering multiple areas of governance. Results revealed that the various claims\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":272,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/non-economic-societal-impacts-of-intercollegiate-athletics\/","url_meta":{"origin":6437,"position":4},"title":"Non-Economic Societal Impacts of Intercollegiate Athletics","date":"March 14, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: David Larimore, Ph.D & George Chitiyo, Ph.D Abstract: Intercollegiate athletics impact society in numerous positive ways. A number of studies have been done seeking to establish the effects of these sports programs on athletes, their institutions, and society at large. This paper is a synthesis of the literature\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":6015,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/sports-marketing-publicity-efforts-in-division-ii-intercollegiate-athletics\/","url_meta":{"origin":6437,"position":5},"title":"Sports Marketing & Publicity Efforts in Division II Intercollegiate Athletics","date":"September 13, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Authors: Robert Zullo Corresponding Author: Robert Zullo, PhD Westminster College 319 South Market Street New Wilmington, PA 16172 zullorh@westminster.edu 724-946-6835 Dr. Robert Zullo is an Associate Professor of Business and Sports Management at Westminster College in New Wilmington, Pennsylvania, located between Pittsburgh and Cleveland. He is also Program Coordinator for\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Research"","img":{"alt_text":"Table 3","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/Table-3.png?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6437"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6437"}],"version-history":[{"count":13,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6437\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6450,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6437\/revisions\/6450"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6437"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6437"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6437"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}