Authors: Timothy Hatten, Adrian\nThomas and Shaine Henert<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Corresponding Author:
Timothy L. Hatten, Ph.D, CSCS, NSCA-CPT, DCT
3301 N. Mulford Road
Rockford, IL. 61114
t.hatten@rockvalleycollege.edu
815-921-3816<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Timothy\nHatten is a Full Professor and Academic\nChair in the Department of Fitness,\nWellness and Sport at Rock Valley College. \nDr. Hatten has over 30 years of experience, playing, managing and\nsponsoring male fastpitch softball. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Adrian Thomas, Helford Endowed Chair of Psychology, is currently the Director of Industrial and Organizational Psychology Ph.D. Program and a Full Professor at Roosevelt University.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Shaine Henert is an Associate Professor and Program Director in the Deparment of\u00a0 Kinesiolgy and Physical Education at Northern Illinois University.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
ABSTRACT<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The sport of fastpitch softball (FS)\nhas been popular in American sports and recreation dating back to at least 1933\nwith the formation of the Amateur Softball Association (ASA), the sport\u2019s\ngoverning body (5). In the United States,\nafter a meteoric rise in participation through most of the century, more\nrecently male fastpitch softball (MFS) has seen an equally dramatic downward\ntrend in participation rates. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The purpose of the current study was\nto obtain baseline beliefs about the etiology of the decreasing participation\nrates in MFS from current participatory stakeholders. A survey of nine questions was distributed to\nthe FS community via Survey Monkey through two softball websites that disseminate\ninformation about MFS. The survey was\nplaced on Al\u2019s Fastball and Fastpitch West FS internet sites for one month and (n=<\/em>415) current and former participants,\ncoaches and\/or sponsors completed the survey. The current study participants felt strongly that\nthe major reasons for the decline in participation included the importance of\nlocal adult leagues (95.9%), lack of media exposure (88.9%), loss of boy\u2019s\nyouth FS programs (88.6%) and the increasing costs (88.2%) associated with MFS.\n When asked how the governing body of\nsoftball might address these reasons for the observed decline in participation\nrespondents deemed increasing youth involvement (42.4%) as the number one\npotential solution. In order, the other\nareas that participants felt were important were developing new pitchers\n(36.9%), improving grassroots programs (29.6%), and increasing media exposure\n(27.1%). Declining participation rates\nin MFS has been an ongoing issue for many years and many rationales for the\ndecline have been offered by both experts and novices. By going directly to the real stakeholders, in\nMFP, it is hoped that outcomes of the current study include empirical\nconfirmation for some oft voiced reasons for the decline in participation as\nwell as providing some real solutions for reversing the trend. <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Keywords: <\/strong>Participation Rates, Development, Fastpitch Softball, National Governing Body<\/p>\n\n\n\n INTRODUCTION<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Sport has become a major attraction within leisure and sport tourism industries (12).\u00a0 Organized softball has long been a staple of American sport and recreation dating back to 1933 with the formation of the Amateur Softball Association (ASA) [Currently branded as USA Softball], the sport\u2019s national governing body (5). \u00a0Men\u2019s fastpitch softball (MFS) was invented in the United States and enjoys a rich and popular history (6). \u00a0In 2005, Sports and Fitness Industry Association (SFIA), formerly the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association (SGMA), research indicated that baseball and softball participation decreased over the previous decade (10). \u00a0SFIA attributed the observed decline to an overall decline in non-organized recreational play (10). \u00a0In 2005, Jess Heald (1) the Executive Director of Play Ball USA, specifically stated that MFS was losing participation numbers, as were most team sports, due to a wide variety of reasons including broad social changes in society. \u00a0Heald further indicated that such social changes served to reduce participation in MFS by creating increased time constraints, changing priorities, increased technology use and a much wider variety of recreational, non-recreational, and sport choices(1).\u00a0 <\/p>\n\n\n\n Understanding Sports\nParticipation<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Participation\nin team sports is a common form of recreation and physical activity for adolescents\nthrough adulthood (11). The values of participation (mental,\nphysical, and psychological) in sport activities for individuals in society\nhave long been established (3). The\nPhysical Activity Council\u2019s annual participation report indicated that\n68,325,609 people participated at least one time in an organized team sport\nactivity (9). Research data indicates\nthat sports participation rates peak at age 11 and then are followed by a\nsteady decline into and through adulthood (2). Others have confirmed that\nparticipation steadily declines with age (7). \nWhile these trends across the lifespan of individual participants are\nimportant, the overall trend combining generations of participants are a much\nlarger concern. In 2007, Vail (16)\nreported that stagnant and declining sport participation rates have been and\ncontinue to be a growing global concern too. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The SFIA President and CEO\nTom Cove stated that the struggling U.S. economy, the emergence of developing\nsports, overall declines in \u2018pickup\u2019 play, and a rising interest in\nsingle-sport specialization has negatively affecting the entire team sports\nenvironment (13). One of the key factors\nmentioned in Cove\u2019s statement is the fact that the economy is hurting sports\nparticipation. Many families have not\nbeen able to afford to pay the basic fees for their children to play in local\nrecreational sports programs much less play on more competitive but even more\ncostly travel teams (13). In a 2015\ninterview with the digital news outlet Quartz, Cove stated, \u201csomething about\nthe American sports experience is not working as well as it should be [working].\u201d Cove went on to say that youth sports have\nbecome too elite, too competitive, and too costly (1). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Participation and Men\u2019s\nFastpitch Softball<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Overall decreasing participation rates in adult and youth sports may have an effect on the participation rates of MFS.\u00a0 The SFIA reported in 2000 that there were 3.8 million individuals who participated in FS in 1999 in the United States (12). \u00a0Of this 3.8 million only 36% of those individuals were male (1.37 million) (12). \u00a0SFIA reported seventeen years later that the number of men participating dropped to 1.163 million participants or a decrease of 15% in just over 17 years (15). \u00a0With a decrease of just under one percent per year, one would think that there would be plenty of time to reverse this trend. \u00a0However, the problem is actually a more pressing concern due to compounding factors over time of teams not having (or having fewer and fewer) other teams to play in their geographical areas. \u00a0This becomes even more multiplicative as there is also a lack of any true youth development programs that introduce young males to FS governing body of softball (5). \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Another contributor to the drop off is\nthe shift in softball from a largely recreational activity to a game sullied by\nindividuals more concerned with finances than fun. A number of teams are securing sponsorships\nfrom deep-pocketed sponsors that willingly spend large amounts of money on the\nsoftball teams that bear either their companies’ or their products’ logos – at\ntimes even going so far as to pay players salaries and traveling expenses (5). These corporate-sponsored teams then buy up\nas much talent as possible – even assembling teams with players from different\nparts of the country – sacrificing team camaraderie and chemistry for victories\n(5). “The buying of players is discouraging grassroots sponsors, coaches\nand smaller organizations from investing their time and resources into\ndeveloping players,” says Ken Hackmeister, executive director of the\nInternational Softball Congress. “Because once they are developed, these\nplayers are often bought by an elite team sponsor (4).”<\/p>\n\n\n\n These Major League-like tactics have\nhelped rob casual players of the fraternal experience softball provides for\nthem, and in its place, introduced a manufactured atmosphere, one in which the best\nplayers play on the best teams, and in turn dominate local leagues and local\ntournaments. Because the focus is no\nlonger on recreation, but instead on winning championships, many teams with\nless talent eventually become frustrated and find that it is not worthwhile for\nthem to continue playing (5). This, in\nturn, then likely leads to many of those local teams to stop playing which\nleads to local leagues and local tournaments disappearing to further the cycle\nof declining participation across the entire sport. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Youth programs are the foundation of\nany adult sport program. USA Softball\nhas attempted to resurrect their male youth development program to improve not\nonly overall participation rates, but to create a more competitive USA male\nJunior Olympic Team in international competition. In 2002, USA Softball\u2019s Boys Fastpitch\nCommittee created a strategic plan to revive their boy\u2019s fastpitch program (8). At that time USA Softball identified the\nfollowing weaknesses for developing a competitive junior boy\u2019s (JB) national\nteam: Insufficient youth pitchers, lack of awareness among prospective young\nathletes, the need to market to a larger audience, and emerging new\ninternational competition as barriers to reviving the JB national program (8). In the same document (8), USA Softball\nidentified the following threats to reviving the JB fastpitch program: international\nplayer development abroad, new technology enhancing competitors\u2019 development, economic\nsituations reducing demand, team sponsors becoming cost sensitive to funding\nteams, and international growth attracting major competitiveness. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Currently MFS is still being played and participated within the United States. \u00a0However, the MFS sport has experienced declining in participation rates over the past 30 years. \u00a0The fact that the SFIA has invested both time and resources to research participation trends in both fitness and sport programming demonstrates the economic impact that sport participation may have on the sport industry.\u00a0 With the historical popularity of MFS, in organizations such as USA Softball and its allied members such as the International Softball Congress (ISC), National Softball Association (NSA) and the North American Softball Association (NAFA), it would make sense that these organizations would have a vested interest in reversing this decline. \u00a0The purpose of the study was the first attempt to provide recommendations and solutions for the declining participation rates in MFS from the participant\u2019s perspective. <\/p>\n\n\n\n METHODS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Participants<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Current and former participants (n<\/em> = 415) in MFS responded to the survey.\n The sample included a wide diversity of\nindividuals with an interest and expertise in MFS. Respondents included current and former players,\ncoaches, and sponsors from varying levels of play, years of experience in the\ngame, geographical locations, educational backgrounds, and income levels. While the primary interest of the present\nstudy was American MFS decline and solutions to reverse that decline, the\nsample included respondents representing a variety of countries and Puerto Rico\n(U.S. territory). The current authors\nfelt that inclusion of participants from outside of the United States, where\ndecline has been less prevalent and MFS infrastructure is more developed, might\nprovide equally useful information regarding the solutions of declining in\nparticipation rates in MFS. It is quite\ncommon for international stakeholders to participate in MFP events in the\nUnited States and play for club teams that reside in the United States. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The authors posted a message on two\ninternet websites focusing on MFS Measurement Tool <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Thesurvey was distributed online for one month via Survey Monkey to two online websites focusing on disseminating and sharing information about MFS. \u00a0The survey consisted of demographic and participation questions. \u00a0It also included nine statements asking the participants their views on why the participation rates in men\u2019s game have declined over the past 30 years. \u00a0The survey responses were created using a Likert-type scale centering on the decline in MFS participation rates (Strongly Agree, Agree, No Opinion, Disagree, and Strongly Disagree). \u00a0One additional question assessed participants\u2019 opinions regarding the role of FS governing agencies in developmental activities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Survey was patterned after the\nsuggested and hypothesized reasons for the decline voiced in previous research\n(1, 5, 6, 8, 10, and 13). Demographics\nincluded stakeholders\u2019 ages and geographical location as described in Table 1. Men\u2019s fastpitch softball participation data\nincluded competition level, years of participation, days per week\nparticipating, and number of teams participating on. Frequency analyses were completed for the\nLikert-type scale responses to the nine questions regarding the decline in MFS\nparticipation. Frequency analyses were\nalso completed for the ranking of participants\u2019 opinions regarding the role of\nFS governing agencies in developmental activities as potential solutions to the\ndecline in MFS. <\/p>\n\n\n\n RESULTS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The predominant age group of those\ncompleting the survey was 34-39 years of age (26.4 %). Participants who completed the survey were\nfrom a variety of countries and Puerto Rico (U.S. territory), with the vast\nmajority of the responses coming from Canada (21.3%) and the United States\n(75.8%). The yearly income of the\nrespondents were evenly distributed with 40-50 thousand (U.S. Dollars)\nidentified as the most common income range at 16.2%. Lastly, the most commonly\nselected level of education was a four-year college degree, chosen by 42.3% of\nthe respondents. The complete range of\nresponses of the participant profile is displayed in Table 1. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 1: Participant Profile<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The participation profile is\ndisplayed in Table 2. The respondents\ncame from a variety of participatory levels of competition. The largest response came from those involved\nwith teams who compete at the NAFA: AA, USA Softball: B and ISC: II levels of\ncompetition, with 22.5% of the respondents choosing this competition level. Of those completing the survey, the\npredominant number of years participating in MFS was over 20 years (51.3%). The respondents reported that 38.1%\nparticipated in MFS three days per week. Lastly, 40.3% of the respondents participated\non two teams per year. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 2: Participant Participation Profile<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The primary purpose of this study was\nto gain greater insight, from the current and former MFS participants, on solutions\nto the decreasing participation rates in MFS in the USA. The survey is the first formal attempt to\ncapture baseline perspectives about providing solutions to the declining\nparticipation rates in MFS from those who have previously or are currently\ninvesting much time, energy and resources in MFS. Table 3 presents a summary of the responses to\nthe nine statements regarding the participants\u2019 views about solutions to the\ndeclining participation rates in MFS. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 3: Survey Results<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The study\nreported that 59.4% of the respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that\nMFS will decline to a point that men will never have the opportunity to\nparticipate in the sport of FS again. The\nstudy revealed that 66.3% of the respondents either agreed or strongly agreed\nthat the decline of pitchers is the primary cause of the decline in player participation.\n The study found that 53.6% of the\nrespondents either agreed or strongly agreed that the governing body of\nsoftball (i.e. USA Softball) is responsible for the decline of player\nparticipation in MFS. Next, 88.2% of the\nrespondents either agreed or strongly agreed that having boys youth FS programs\nare important to increasing the overall adult FS participation numbers. The current study also found that 88.9% of the\nrespondents either agreed or strongly agreed that media exposure (e.g., radio,\nTV, Internet) is important to increasing player participation in MFS. Further, 75.1% of the respondents either\nagreed or strongly agreed that youth tournaments (i.e., 10, 12, 14, 16, 18 and\nunder) are important to increasing overall participation rates in MFS. The\nstudy also revealed that 95.9% of the respondents either agreed or strongly agreed\nthat having local adult\nleagues are important to reversing the declining participation rates in MFS. Based on the study, 88.2% of the respondents either agreed or strongly agreed\nthat increasing costs (i.e, equipment, travel, uniforms) play a role in\ndecreasing participation rates in MFS. Lastly,\nthe study indicated that 42.4% of the respondents either agreed or strongly\nagreed that the difficulty in mastering the game of FS plays a role in the\ndeclining participation rates in MFS.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 4 presents a rank order of the\nparticipant\u2019s responses regarding the role of FS governing body in potential developmental\nactivities. The most common response chosen\nwas increasing youth involvement (42.4%). The other responses that were most often\nchosen were increasing the number of pitchers (37%), improving grassroots\nprograms (29.3%), increasing media exposure (27.1%), increasing adult men\u2019s\nparticipation (23.5%), and increasing college involvement (14.3%). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 4: (Activities the governing body should focus on development)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In your opinion which of the following activities should the governing body focus on development? Based on the survey results, the participants\nbelieve that the availability of local leagues to adults is extremely important\nto increasing participation trends in MFS 95.9 % of the respondents either\nagreed or strongly agreed with this question. The current participants also believe that media\nexposure (88.9%), boy\u2019s youth FS programs (88.2%), and increasing costs (88.2%)\nare important factors related to participation trends in MFS. Interestingly, 40.5% of the respondents had no\nopinion, disagreed or strongly disagreed that MFS participation will decline to\na point that men will never have the opportunity to participate in FS again. These responses do indicate how a large\npercent of the MFS stakeholders do not believe the decreasing participation\nrates are serious or large enough to eliminate MFS as a competitive\nrecreational sport opportunity. <\/p>\n\n\n\n DISCUSSION<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Participation trends are critical to\nany sport organization as it can be a predictor of revenue and\/or growth. A wide diversity of participants in MFS\nparticipated in this study for no compensation, which demonstrates that current\nparticipatory stakeholders have at least some interest in this topic. The survey clearly indicates that the current\nmale participants believe that increasing adult league participation, media\nexposure, and youth participation may play important roles in increasing\nparticipation rates. This suggested\ncourse of action mirrors the research that the SFIA is reporting to their\nmembers. In a SFIA webinar, on the 2010\nsports participation report, SFIA reported the importance of having \u201cPathway\nFunnels\u201d into the \u201cTeam Sports Pipeline\u201d (14). Pathway Funnels are player participation options\nfor youth to get them exposed to team sport activities. These funnels can be created in school\nphysical education programs, by individual parental involvement, recreation\nprograms, and casual play. Once into the\nTeam Sport Pipeline, it is up to those organizing and supervising those teams\nto retain these participants until adulthood. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2006, Hatten and his colleagues\n(6) investigated the differences between the Amateur Softball Association and\nAustralian Softball Federation in regards to declining participation rates in MFS. Hatten et al. (6) reported that the ASA\nshould implement the strategic plan developed in 2002 focusing on reinvigorating\ntheir boy\u2019s FS program. Hatten, et al.(6)\nalso suggested that the ASA play a more active role in grass roots programs\nthroughout the United States that have an interest in boys\u2019 FS. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The current study reinforces some of the\nconclusions resulting from past research about this topic (5, 6, and 8). The current study also demonstrates, for the\nfirst time, what the participatory stakeholders view as the problems and the potential\nsolutions to the issue of declining participation rates in MFS. This has never been reported before in the\nliterature. The current study reinforces\nthe importance of improving marketing\nand media exposure of MFS, creating a process to develop males who can pitch,\nproviding for more league play and redeveloping the MFS youth base. <\/p>\n\n\n\n CONCLUSIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n This study was the first attempt to go directly to the stake holders for their perspectives on solutions and recommendations to reverse the declining participation rates in a once highly participatory sport for males.\u00a0 The current study participants felt strongly that the major reasons for the decline in participation included the importance of local adult leagues (95.9%), lack of media exposure (88.9%), loss of boy\u2019s youth FS programs (88.6%) and the increasing costs (88.2%) associated with MFS.\u00a0 When asked how the governing body of softball might address these reasons for the observed decline in participation respondents deemed increasing youth involvement (42.4%) as the number one potential solution.\u00a0 In order, the other areas that participants felt were important were developing new pitchers (36.9%), improving grassroots programs (29.6%), and increasing media exposure (27.1%).\u00a0 Declining participation rates in MFS has been an ongoing issue for many years and many rationales for the decline have been offered by both experts and novices.\u00a0 By going directly to the real stakeholders, in MFP, it is hoped that outcomes of the current study include empirical confirmation for some oft voiced reasons for the decline in participation as well as providing some real solutions for reversing the trend. \u00a0Limitations<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n The study recommends that the current and former participants be further examined with a more in depth interview to clearly get a description of their views and solutions to this issue. \u00a0This was a limitation in that the participants merely ranked areas that they felt were most or least import in regards to the causes of declining participation rates in MFS. \u00a0This is a good start, as this is the first formal study to address this topic with the current and former participants of the sport. \u00a0It would be interesting to examine what the stakeholders would have to say in a face-to-face interview or responding to this issue in a more open-ended question approach. <\/p>\n\n\n\n APPLICATIONS IN SPORT<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n All\nsport managers are concerned about the negative effect that declining\nparticipation numbers can have on the financial viability of their\norganizations as well as their ability to identify elite athletes or to develop\ntheir sport (16). This study has direct applications to\nthose who are most directly affected by declining participation rates in rates\nin MFS, (i.e. USA Men\u2019s and Boy\u2019s National Program, national and international governing\nbodies, softball complexes, softball organizations that sponsor league and tournament\nplay, and those that are directly participating in the game of MFS). This study was the first attempt to formally\ndocument the views of the individuals that actually participate or who have\nparticipated in the game of MFS. The opinions\nand views of the current and past participants can provide important insight. For the game of MFS to reverse this declining\ntrend, it may be time for the national governing body and other sport\norganization to actively collaborate with these individuals to develop a\ncomprehensive strategic plan to increase participation rate in MFS. <\/p>\n\n\n\n ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The authors would like to recognize Michael Judd, Ph.D.\n(Former Chair of the Graduate Program: Sport Science and Sport Management at\nCardinal Stritch University. Dr. Judd\nwas one of the driving forces to bring this topic to light and to publish\nresearch surrounding it.) <\/p>\n\n\n\n The authors would like to recognize the Sport and Fitness\nIndustry of America (SFIA) for providing the participation reports used in this\narticle. REFERENCES <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n(i.e., http:\/\/www.alsfastball.com and http:\/\/www.fastpitchwest.com\/forum\/) that\nexplained the purpose of the study and the survey that was available to be\ntaken. Those that were interested in\nproviding their opinions and completing the survey were allowed to do so by\nclicking a survey link within the solicitation message. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\n Age<\/strong><\/td>\n Geographical Location<\/strong><\/td>\n Yearly Income ( ,000)<\/strong><\/td>\n Level of Education<\/strong><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n 23-Under<\/td>\n 3.10%<\/td>\n Argentina<\/td>\n 0.20%<\/td>\n 0-30<\/td>\n 9.20%<\/td>\n < HS Education<\/td>\n 0.50%<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n 24-28<\/td>\n 12.10%<\/td>\n Australia<\/td>\n 0.70%<\/td>\n 30-40<\/td>\n 15.20%<\/td>\n HS Degree<\/td>\n 22.50%<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n 29-33<\/td>\n 21.50%<\/td>\n Canada<\/td>\n 21.30%<\/td>\n 40-50<\/td>\n 16.20%<\/td>\n 2 Year College Degree<\/td>\n 21.30%<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n 34-39<\/td>\n 26.40%<\/td>\n Denmark<\/td>\n 0.50%<\/td>\n 50-60<\/td>\n 15.00%<\/td>\n 4 Year College Degree<\/td>\n 42.30%<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n 40-44<\/td>\n 16.20%<\/td>\n Netherlands<\/td>\n 0.20%<\/td>\n 60-70<\/td>\n 11.30%<\/td>\n Masters Degree<\/td>\n 10.10%<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n 45-49<\/td>\n 7.50%<\/td>\n New Zealand<\/td>\n 1.00%<\/td>\n 70-80<\/td>\n 8.80%<\/td>\n Professional Degree <\/td>\n 3.40%<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n 50-Over<\/td>\n 13.10%<\/td>\n Puerto Rico<\/td>\n 0.20%<\/td>\n 80-90<\/td>\n 5.60%<\/td>\n (JD, MD, Ph.D., DC, etc)<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n USA<\/td>\n 75.80%<\/td>\n 90-100<\/td>\n 6.40%<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 100+<\/td>\n 12.30%<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/tr>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\n Participation Level<\/strong><\/td>\n Total Years of Participation<\/strong><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n NAFA (Major), ASC (Major, ISC I)<\/td>\n 21.80%<\/td>\n 1-3<\/td>\n 1.20%<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n NAFA (AAA), ASA (A), ISC (II)<\/td>\n 16.10%<\/td>\n 4-6<\/td>\n 7.50%<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n NAFA (AA Major), ASA (A), ISC (II)<\/td>\n 13.20%<\/td>\n 7-9<\/td>\n 5.60%<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n NAFA (AA), ASA (B), ISC (II)<\/td>\n 22.50%<\/td>\n 10-12<\/td>\n 10.20%<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n NAFA (A Major), ASA (C),<\/td>\n 16.10%<\/td>\n 13-15<\/td>\n 9.20%<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n NAFA (A), ASA (C),<\/td>\n 14.40%<\/td>\n 16-19<\/td>\n 14.80%<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n 23 and Under<\/td>\n 13.00%<\/td>\n 20+<\/td>\n 51.30%<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n Days\/week of Participation in a Season<\/strong><\/td>\n # of Teams Participate with in a Season<\/strong><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n One<\/td>\n 10.50%<\/td>\n One<\/td>\n 36.90%<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n Two<\/td>\n 27.60%<\/td>\n Two<\/td>\n 40.30%<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n Three<\/td>\n 38.10%<\/td>\n Three<\/td>\n 17.60%<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n Four<\/td>\n 15.90%<\/td>\n Four<\/td>\n 3.20%<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n Five or more<\/td>\n 7.90%<\/td>\n Five or more<\/td>\n 2.00%<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\n 1. Men’s fastpitch softball player participation will decline to a point that men will never have the opportunity to participate in the \nsport of fastpitch softball again. (n<\/em>=415)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n Strongly Agree<\/strong><\/td>\n Agree<\/strong><\/td>\n No Opinion<\/strong><\/td>\n Disagree<\/strong><\/td>\n Strongly Disagree<\/strong><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n 9.5%(40)<\/td>\n 49.9%(207)<\/em><\/td>\n 2.4%(10)<\/td>\n 33.5%(139)<\/td>\n 4.6%(19)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n 2. The decline of pitchers the #1 cause of player participation decline. \u00a0(n<\/em>=415)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n Strongly Agree<\/strong><\/td>\n Agree<\/strong><\/td>\n No Opinion<\/strong><\/td>\n Disagree<\/strong><\/td>\n Strongly Disagree<\/strong><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n 22.7%(94)<\/td>\n 43.6%(181)<\/em><\/td>\n 2.9%(12)<\/td>\n 26.7%(111)<\/td>\n 4.1%(17)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n 3. The governing body of softball (ASA) responsible for the decline of player participation in men’s fastpitch softball. (n<\/em>=414)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n Strongly Agree<\/strong><\/td>\n Agree<\/strong><\/td>\n No Opinion<\/strong><\/td>\n Disagree<\/strong><\/td>\n Strongly Disagree<\/strong><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n 19.3%(80)<\/td>\n 34.3%(142)<\/em><\/td>\n 22.7%(94)<\/td>\n 21.3%(88)<\/td>\n 2.4%(10)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n 4. Boys youth fastpitch programs important to increasing overall adult participation numbers. (n<\/em>=414)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n Strongly Agree<\/strong><\/td>\n Agree<\/strong><\/td>\n No Opinion<\/strong><\/td>\n Disagree<\/strong><\/td>\n Strongly Disagree<\/strong><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n 55.6%(230)<\/em><\/td>\n 32.6%(135)<\/td>\n 5.3%(22)<\/td>\n 5.8%(24)<\/td>\n 0.7%(3)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n 5. Media exposure (radio, TV, Internet,) is important to increasing player participation in men’s fastpitch softball. (n<\/em>=414)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n Strongly Agree<\/strong><\/td>\n Agree<\/strong><\/td>\n No Opinion<\/strong><\/td>\n Disagree<\/strong><\/td>\n Strongly Disagree<\/strong><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n 43.7%(181)<\/td>\n 45.2%(187)<\/em><\/td>\n 5.3%(22)<\/td>\n 5.3%(22)<\/td>\n 0.5%(2)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n 6. Youth tournaments (i.e. 10, 12, 14, 16, 18 and under) national tournaments are important to increasing overall participation rates \nmen’s fastpitch softball. (n<\/em>=414)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n Strongly Agree<\/strong><\/td>\n Agree<\/strong><\/td>\n No Opinion<\/strong><\/td>\n Disagree<\/strong><\/td>\n Strongly Disagree<\/strong><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n 32.6%(135)<\/td>\n 42.5%(176)<\/em><\/td>\n 10.6%(44)<\/td>\n 13.5%(56)<\/td>\n 0.7%(3)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n 7. Local adult leagues are important to reversing the declining participation rates in men’s fastpitch softball.\u00a0 (n<\/em>=413)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n Strongly Agree<\/strong><\/td>\n Agree<\/strong><\/td>\n No Opinion<\/strong><\/td>\n Disagree<\/strong><\/td>\n Strongly Disagree<\/strong><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n 52.8%(218)<\/em><\/td>\n 43.1%(178)<\/td>\n 1.9%(8)<\/td>\n 1.9%(8)<\/td>\n 0.2%(1)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n 8. Increasing costs (i.e. equipment, travel, uniforms), associated with participation in men’s fastpitch softball, play a role in \ndecreasing participation rates in men’s fastpitch softball. (n<\/em>=412)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n Strongly Agree<\/strong><\/td>\n Agree<\/strong><\/td>\n No Opinion<\/strong><\/td>\n Disagree<\/strong><\/td>\n Strongly Disagree<\/strong><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n 55.6%(230)<\/td>\n 32.6%(135)<\/td>\n 5.3%(22)<\/td>\n 5.8%(24)<\/td>\n 0.7%(3)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n 9. The difficulty in mastering the game of faspitch softball plays a role in declining participation rates in men’s fastpitch softball.\n(n<\/em>=415)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n Strongly Agree<\/strong><\/td>\n Agree<\/strong><\/td>\n No Opinion<\/strong><\/td>\n Disagree<\/strong><\/td>\n Strongly Disagree<\/strong><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n 10.1%(42)<\/td>\n 32.3%(134)<\/td>\n 17.3%(72)<\/td>\n 35.7%(148)<\/em><\/td>\n 4.6%(19)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
(For each question please rank with 1= most important and 6= least important)<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n <\/td>\n 1<\/strong><\/td>\n 2<\/strong><\/td>\n 3<\/strong><\/td>\n 4<\/strong><\/td>\n 5<\/strong><\/td>\n 6<\/strong><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n Increasing Youth (8-18) Boys Participation<\/td>\n 42.4%(175)<\/td>\n 22.3% (92)<\/td>\n 15.5%(64)<\/td>\n 9.0%(37)<\/td>\n 3.9%(16)<\/td>\n 7.0%(29)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n Increasing Adult Men’s Participation<\/td>\n 23.5% (97)<\/td>\n 30.0%(124)<\/td>\n 17.9%(74)<\/td>\n 10.9%(45)<\/td>\n 10.4%(43)<\/td>\n 7.3%(30)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n Increasing the Numbers of Pitchers<\/td>\n 37.0%(153)<\/td>\n 25.4% (105)<\/td>\n 17.0%(70)<\/td>\n 9.2%(38)<\/td>\n 7.3% (30)<\/td>\n 4.1%(17)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n Increasing College Involvement<\/td>\n 14.3% (59)<\/td>\n 17.2% (71)<\/td>\n 17.2%(71)<\/td>\n 17.2% (71)<\/td>\n 15.7%(66)<\/td>\n 18.2%(76)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n Improving Grassroots Programs
\n (i.e., Recreation, YMCA, Schools, Church)<\/td>\n 29.3%(121)<\/td>\n 22.3%(92)<\/td>\n 17.0%(70)<\/td>\n 13.3%(55)<\/td>\n 11.1%(46)<\/td>\n 7.0%(29)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n \n Increasing Media Exposure
\n (i.e TV, Radio, Internet)<\/td>\n 27.1%(112)<\/td>\n 20.5% (85)<\/td>\n 14.7%(61)<\/td>\n 11.8%(49)<\/td>\n 11.1%(45)<\/td>\n 14.7%(61)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n