Transcript oneafar.org

Myths and Realities about
Intercollegiate Athletics –
What Research Tells Us
September 2014
1A FAR Annual Meeting
Dr. Thomas Paskus, NCAA Research
Dr. David Clough, University of Colorado
Having additional money is the
biggest concern among Division I
student-athletes
If you could change one thing about your SA experience…
Transfer in men’s basketball is
exploding and typically involves
big programs poaching players
from smaller programs
2012-13 Transfer Composition of Division I Student-Athlete
Population (Sorted by % of 4-Year College Transfers in APR Cohort)
Men’s Sport
Tennis
Basketball
Soccer
Skiing
Golf
Track (Indoor)
Track (Outdoor)
Football (FCS)
Cross Country
Wrestling
Swimming
Volleyball
Rifle (co-ed)
Ice Hockey
Football (FBS)
Lacrosse
Gymnastics
Fencing
Baseball
Water Polo
4-year
14.6%
13.3%
12.3%
10.9%
8.6%
8.3%
7.9%
7.2%
7.0%
5.2%
4.8%
4.7%
4.6%
4.1%
3.7%
3.7%
2.8%
2.4%
2.1%
1.6%
Women’s Sport
Tennis
Skiing
Golf
Volleyball
Basketball
Track (Outdoor)
Track (Indoor)
Soccer
Cross Country
Water Polo
Bowling
Softball
Ice Hockey
Swimming
Field Hockey
Lacrosse
Rowing
Gymnastics
Fencing
4-year
11.3%
10.2%
9.0%
8.7%
8.6%
6.4%
6.3%
6.1%
5.8%
5.7%
5.4%
5.2%
5.2%
4.5%
4.3%
3.8%
3.3%
2.3%
2.1%
% Transfers on Team
Trends in the Proportion of Men’s Basketball Transfers
in Division I APR Cohorts
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4-4 Transfer
2-4 Transfer
Transfer Total
Year
Notes:
Analyses based on 323 men’s basketball squads that sponsored the sport within Division I during all 10
years.
Directional Movement of Transfers
(2013 MBB SAs on the ESPN Division I Transfer List)
Uptransfer
9%
Lateral
22%
Downtransfer
69%
• Direction of the 380
known transfer
destinations
• Direction determined
mainly by division &
conference
Directional Movement Among MBB
Players who Transferred within Division I
Uptransfer
17%
Lateral
41%
Downtransfer
42%
Up-transfer eligibility (N=34)
• 47% graduate students
• 38% undergrads, sitting
out 2013-14 season
• 8% waiver pending
• 6% waiver granted
Drug use and drinking by studentathletes is rampant relative to the
general student population
Marijuana Use by Sport (Men)
Prescription Pain Medication
(Use Within the Last 12 Months)
25%
23%
20%
18%
15%
Total Use
With Prescription
Without Prescription
10%
6%
5%
0%
2009
2013
You can’t believe the NCAA’s
graduation rates– their numbers
are distorted.
Federal Graduation Rate:
Thumbs Up or Thumbs Down?
Adjusted Graduation Gap (AGG)
• See Eckard (2010), NCAA athlete graduation rates: Less
than meets the eye, Journal of Sport Management.
• Key assumptions:
– Whereas student-athletes in the federal graduation rate cohort
are required to remain full-time, many members of the federal
student body cohort revert to part-time status.
– SB rate adjusted up, SA rate not adjusted. SB frequently drops
to part-time status at D1 schools but SAs do not.
– % part-time students at a school is used as a proxy for % of
full-time degree seeking students who drop down to part-time
status during their six-year window.
Page 21
Adjusted
Graduation
Gap (AGG)
in FBS
Football
(Sept. 2013 press
release from
College Sport
Research Institute
published on
Chronicle of Higher
Education website)
“Major clustering” is on the rise,
especially as a function of new IE,
PTD and APR standards
How to define “major clustering”?
• Case, Greer & Brown (1987) – Clustering = 25%
or more of student-athletes on a team with the
same major.
• This definition lacks sufficient nuance.
Page 24
Majors of MFB,MBB vs. Other Male SAs
(School 2 – No Statistically Significant Difference)
Major: Division I Football
Overall Male
National
Football Student-Athletes
N=734,133
Academic Year
Major Category
Academic Year
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
2010-11
N=9,728
N=9,603
N=9,664
N=9,610
N=9,642
N=9,732
N=9,773
N=9,833
N=9,904
24.6
25.4
23.7
24.3
25.1
24.7
24.7
24.5
26.1
16.4
20.4
18.9
18.3
18.7
19.1
19.0
18.9
18.6
17.3
25.5
11.1
11.7
12.4
12.3
12.2
11.9
11.9
13.0
12.0
14.4
8.1
8.2
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.8
8.9
8.5
7.9
9.3
7.3
8.1
8.4
8.4
8.2
8.1
8.5
8.0
6.7
2.6
Education
8.3
8.1
7.8
7.1
6.5
6.4
5.8
5.7
6.6
2.9
Multi/Interdisciplinary Studies
4.2
3.9
5.1
5.5
5.6
6.3
6.1
6.1
6.4
2.8
Engineering and Engineering
Technology
6.0
5.6
5.4
4.9
5.3
5.2
5.3
5.3
5.4
12.6
Biological & Biomedical Studies
3.3
3.6
3.6
3.8
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.5
7.0
Psychology
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.6
2.5
2.6
3.2
3.3
3.3
3.2
1.9
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.8
2.9
1.0
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.1
0.8
0.4
Social Sciences
Business, Management, Marketing
and Related
Liberal Arts & Sciences,
General Studies and Humanities
Communication,
Journalism and Related
Parks, Recreation,
Leisure and Fitness
Health Professions and
Related Clinical Services
Area, Ethnic, Cultural and Gender
Studies
Major: Division I Women’s Other
Overall Female
National
Women’s Other Student-Athletes
N=981,780
Major Category
Academic Year
Academic Year
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
2010-11
N=16,807
N=16,768 N=17,650 N=18,055 N=18,052 N=18,739 N=19,318 N=19,776 N=19,591
Business, Management, Marketing
and Related
16.3
15.5
15.4
15.7
16.5
16.8
16.3
15.3
14.3
18.1
Social Sciences
13.0
13.1
13.0
13.5
13.1
12.5
12.4
11.9
12.3
13.8
Liberal Arts & Sciences,
General Studies and Humanities
11.6
11.8
11.9
11.2
11.1
10.3
10.7
10.8
10.3
15.9
Education
11.4
11.2
11.0
10.7
10.3
10.1
9.3
9.5
9.7
8.4
Biological & Biomedical Studies
8.0
7.8
8.0
7.7
8.1
8.3
8.2
8.3
8.8
6.8
Communication,
Journalism and Related
9.1
9.0
9.2
9.3
9.4
9.5
9.3
9.2
8.7
6.4
Psychology
7.5
7.6
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.3
7.5
8.0
7.9
7.9
7.9
8.2
8.6
8.9
8.8
8.7
9.2
9.4
7.6
1.7
5.8
6.2
6.3
6.6
6.8
7.0
7.5
7.6
7.4
12.4
3.4
3.8
4.0
4.2
4.3
4.6
4.5
4.4
4.7
5.0
4.6
4.1
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.8
3.9
4.2
4.4
2.8
0.7
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
Parks, Recreation,
Leisure and Fitness
Health Professions and
Related Clinical Services
Multi/Interdisciplinary Studies
Engineering and Engineering
Technology
Area, Ethnic, Cultural and Gender
Studies
Division I Student-Athlete Self-Report of Issues with
Major Choice
(among those who have selected a major)
If you weren’t a college athlete, would you still choose your current major?
Probably /
Definitely Not
Baseball
Men’s
Basketball
16%
15%
Football
All Other
Men’s
Sports
Women’s
Basketball
All Other
Women’s
Sports
16% 10%
7%
9%
7%
Has athletics participation prevented you from majoring in what you really want?
Football
All Other
Men’s
Sports
Women’s
Basketball
All Other
Women’s
Sports
18%
20% 13%
11%
18%
13%
6%
12%
5%
7%
6%
Baseball
Men’s
Basketball
Yes, but no
regrets
24%
Yes and I
regret
5%
5%
Coaching and administrative
opportunities have increased in
Division I for women and
racial/ethnic minorities
Percentage of Female Head Coaches in Various NCAA
Women’s Sports
(Comparison of 1995-96 vs 2012-13 – All Divisions)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1995-96
2012-13
Changes in coach / administrator
diversity
•
79% of Division I women’s basketball assistant coaches were
women in 1995. Today=65%.
•
Currently, 14.5% of NCAA head coaches are from racial/ethnic
minority groups (10% in 1995). But, the number has increased
from 736 to 1,513.
•
In 1996, 3,053 female head coaches of women's NCAA teams
(43% of total). In 2012, total=4,024 (but down to 39% of total).
•
About 4% of NCAA men’s teams have women as head coaches.
•
Only 12% of NCAA athletics directors are from a racial/ethnic
minority group (9% in 1995)
Page 31
FAR Diversity (Division I)
• % Women
– 1995-96: 18% (241 M, 53 W)
– 2012-13: 30% (250 M, 108 W)
• % White
– 1995-96: 91%
– 2012-13: 86%
Page 32
All FBS athletic departments net
millions of dollars
Number of Division I Schools Reporting
Positive Net Revenue in Athletics Departments
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
18
18
19
25
25
14
22
23
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
23
20
0
2004
2005
Positive
Revenue
*NumberNet
displayed
by
2012 2013
Total
I Institutions
data Division
point equals
number of
each
institutions showing positive generated net revenue in that year.
*Number displayed by each data point equals number of institutions showing positive generated net revenue in that year.
34
Division I Teams that Generate more Revenue than Expenses
56% of FBS men’s football programs
generate more revenue than expenses
22% of Division I men’s basketball programs
generate more revenue than expenses
Exhibit 3317, pgs. 28, 54, 80
35
Division I Basketball Programs
64
Schools in FBS
Schools in FCS
4
Div. I Schools
w/o Football
6
0
120
56
122
118
91
20
40
More Generated Revenue than Expenses
97
60
80
100
120
140
More Expenses than Generated Revenue
74/339 = 22%
Exhibit 3317, pgs. 28, 54, 80
36
LIGHTNING ROUND
A Division I student-athlete’s
relationship with faculty members
is best characterized as a
privileged one
Student-Athlete Perceptions of How
They Are Viewed by Faculty
Men
Women
Student-athletes are viewed favorably by professors here.
27%
30%
Faculty/administrators on this campus support SAs and their
teams.
51%
60%
% Agree / Strongly Agree with the following…
% Agree / Strongly Agree with the following…
Men
D1
D2
Women
D3
D1
D2
D3
Professors on this campus assume I’m not a good
student because I’m also an athlete.
20% 18% 14% 13% 11% 6%
Professors on this campus are resentful of the
treatment that athletes receive.
18% 16% 13% 11% 11% 6%
Generally, professors at this college hold
stereotypes about athletes that negatively
impact my daily experiences here.
19% 17% 13% 10% 10% 5%
I want my professors to know I am a studentathlete.
50% 57% 56% 68% 73% 67%
Measures of Academic Entitlement
% Agree/Strongly Agree that…
Men
Women
If the grades on a test are low, the professor should curve the
grades.
If I’m struggling in a class, the professor should approach me and
offer to help.
It’s a professor’s obligation to be flexible when SAs have conflicts
due to games or practices.
If I turn in all the assignments for a class, I am entitled to a good
grade.
25% 22%
The professor is responsible for how well I do in class.
11%
20% 13%
49% 51%
21% 18%
5%
Many Division I football and men’s
basketball players are functionally
illiterate
Men’s Basketball vs. the Student Body
• SAT reading <400 = “an elementary reading level
and too low for college classes” ?
• According to the College Board, 19% of all 2012
college bound HS seniors have SAT Critical
Reading scores below 400.
• 20% of MBB frosh below 400.
Page 42
Men’s Basketball vs. the Student Body
• 16 on ACT Reading = “threshold for being college
literate”? According to the ACT, 20% of all ACTtested HS graduates score below 16 on ACT
Reading. In contrast, only 13% of MBB frosh
score below 16 on ACT Reading.
• Among black MBB players, 26% have SAT Critical
Reading scores below 400 vs. 37% among all
black college-bound seniors nationwide.
Page 43
APR is simply a measure of a
school’s financial resources
Predicting APR from Team/School Data
Model 1 (R2 = .38)
Predictor
B-weight
Beta-weight
p < .01
+0.21
+0.61
*
B-weight
Beta-weight
p < .01
Average test (SAT-units)
+0.15
+0.45
*
Pct non-transfers on team
+1.05
+0.36
*
B-weight
Beta-weight
p < .01
Average test (SAT-units)
+0.12
+0.36
*
Pct non-transfers on team
+0.83
+0.29
*
School resource (z-units)
+10.3
+0.28
*
Average test (SAT-units)
Model 2 (R2 = .48)
Predictor
Model 3 (R2 = .54)
Predictor
Academic performance is better
during a student-athlete’s
competitive season
In-Season Deficits Most Prominent
in…
•
•
•
•
Football
Baseball, Softball
M/W Soccer
M Basketball (spring)
Page 47
APR Eligibility Rates in Track and Field for
2009-10
(By term– semester schools only)
Women
Fall Eligibility
Spring
Eligibility
Participating only in Track (Indoor
and/or Outdoor)
979
937
Participating in both Cross Country and
Track (Indoor and/or Outdoor)
992
974
Men
Fall Eligibility
Spring
Eligibility
Participating only in Track (Indoor
and/or Outdoor)
972
904
Participating in both Cross Country and
Track (Indoor and/or Outdoor)
987
957
APR eligibility rates calculated as 1000*(eligibility points earned / eligibility points
possible). Participation split based on APR cohort inclusion.
Division I student-athletes have a
good read on their likelihood of
playing at the pro or Olympic level
Real vs. Perceived Probability of Pro Athletics Career
A redshirt year in football provides
a substantial academic benefit
First-Year Redshirting in Football
First-Year Redshirting in Division I Football
70%
% of Frosh Redshirting
65%
60%
Major 5 FBS
55%
Other FBS
FCS
50%
45%
40%
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
Page 52
First-Year Academic Outcomes in
Football as a Function of Redshirting
Outcome
Competed
Redshirted
Impact of
Redshirting after
Statistically
Controlling for
HSCGPA, TEST
First Semester Credits
12.9
11.1
-1.6*
Year-End Credits
28.4
26.7
-1.6*
First Semester GPA
2.52
2.60
+0.12*
Year-End GPA
2.66
2.67
+0.06*
Note: Data from 2012-13 frosh. Redshirting statistically significant at p<.01 in linear regression after
controlling for HS core grades and ACT/SAT score = *
Page 53
“One-and-done” men’s basketball
players tend to be academically
low-performing
“One and done”
• Approximately 8 drafted men’s basketball players per year.
• From 2011 to 2013, the men’s basketball SAs who departed
after one year of college:
– Had an average core high school GPA of 2.73.
– All but one earned their APR eligibility point in their final term
of enrollment.
– Earned a spring GPA of 2.65 on average and had a cumulative
GPA of 2.94 at time of departure.
– Only 4 of 22 (one of the 23 first-year departures was not
tracked in APR) departed with a cumulative GPA below 2.50.
The lowest departing GPA was 2.25. 7 of the 22 left with GPAs
above 3.00.
Page 55
Student-athletes feel highly
empowered to speak up or
intervene when the situation calls
for it
Considerations for Intervention
% who Agree/Strongly Agree with the following statements
about deciding whether or not to help someone in trouble…
INCENTIVES
Men
Women
All community members play a role in keeping people safe.
78%
85%
I like thinking of myself as a helper.
77%
59%
89%
57%
Men
Women
45%
43%
40%
37%
37%
40%
41%
37%
29%
32%
Teammates will look up to me if I intervene.
DRAWBACKS
I could get physically hurt by intervening.
Intervening might make my teammates angry with me.
People might think I’m overreacting to the situation.
Sometimes it’s just too much trouble to intervene.
I could get in trouble if I intervene.
Topics for Discussion With the Team
Coach/athletic department education
topic:
Men
Women
Discussed
Want more
Discussed
Want more
Conducting self appropriately on
campus and in community
90%
29% (#2)
94%
31% (#3)
Drinking/substance use
87%
25% (#3)
93%
32% (#2)
Respecting diversity
83%
21%
78%
26%
Diffusing/avoiding confrontations
83%
22%
79%
26%
Responsible use of social
networking
Speaking up when you see things
around you that aren’t right
Appropriate treatment of
members of the opposite sex
80%
19%
82%
27%
80%
35% (#1)
77%
47% (#1)
80%
16%
66%
19%
Hazing/bullying
78%
16%
74%
20%
Interacting with the media
73%
16%
71%
17%
Relationship violence
67%
13%
54%
18%
Graduate students (and graduate
transfers) within Division I
perform at academically high
levels
Completion Status by Sport
100%
90%
80%
70%
16%
18%
40%
40%
59%
60%
13%
50%
20%
Withdrew
15%
Enrolled
40%
30%
68%
Graduated
9%
66%
47%
7%
44%
32%
10%
24%
0%
Women's Women's
Other
Basketball
Men's
Other
Men's
Football
Basketball
Note: Completion status for 2011-12 and 2012-13 cohorts of graduate transfers after their
fourth semester or later (Summer 2014).
Page 60
Division I student-athletes are less
likely to believe they have an
obligation to community service
than D2/D3 student-athletes
Community Service
• Division I student-athletes report a similar
amount of time spent on volunteer / service
activities as SAs in D2, D3.
• Slightly more likely to say the service was a
valuable experience and that they have an
obligation to community service.
• Effects strongest (and seen post-college) among
SAs of color.
Page 62
FBS institutions invest
significantly more institutional
dollars into athletics than other
Division I schools
Division I Median Institutional Support
Provided to Athletics Department
By Subdivision and Year (2004 – 2013)
-$15,000,000
-$13,000,000
-$11,000,000
-$9,000,000
-$7,000,000
-$5,000,000
-$3,000,000
-$1,000,000
FBS
FCS
No MFB
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Percentage increase from 2004-2013: FBS = 96.9%
FCS = 83.4%
No MFB = 96.7%
Men’s teams receive much more
scholarship aid than women’s
teams
Average Scholarship Cost per Student-Athlete by
Gender
(For Primary Sports Sponsored for Both Males and Females)
$45,000
$40,000
$35,000
$30,000
$25,000
$20,000
Men
$15,000
Women
$10,000
The Division I student-athlete
population is not as diverse as it
once was
Racial/Ethnic Makeup of Division I Scholarship
Student-Athletes vs Student Body Over Time
Student Body by Race/Ethnicity
14%
Student-Athletes by Race/Ethnicity
1983-84 8%
7%
AfricanAmerican
White
78%
10%
Other
25%
68%
2012-13
61%
AfricanAmerican
White
Other
2012-13
AfricanAmerican
White
29%
1983-84
Other
21% 22%
57%
AfricanAmerican
White
Other
Contact
Dr. Thomas Paskus
NCAA Research
[email protected]
Follow us on Twitter – @NCAAResearch
Page 69