Chapter 14
Reading 1. Research faculty are not eager to study intercollegiate sports
Reading 2. A brief history of NCAA academic reforms
Reading 3. School–community relations
Reading 4. Bibliography of research on college sports
Reading 5. Ethnicity and sport participation among high school girls
Reading 6. Conformity or leadership in high school sports
Reading 7. Should intercollegiate athletes be paid?
Reading 1.
Research faculty are not eager to study intercollegiate sports
Research faculty are not known for doing critical investigations of college sports. This made it
surprising when Dr. Myles Brand, the president of the National Collegiate Athletic Association
(NCAA), to invite scholars to the 2006 NCAA convention to discuss whether college sports were
a legitimate topic for scholarly inquiry.
I was asked to lead off this discussion by explaining why university researchers have not
done critical studies of the sport programs that constitute such a visible representation of their
own universities. The point of my presentation was that doing such research can be risky to a
scholar’s career in higher education. In making this point, I identified four factors that constrain
faculty research on college sports and then recommended how the NCAA might minimize those
constraints and create incentives for researchers to turn their attention to college sports. The
following essay is an abridged version of my presentation:
The Risky Business of Studying College Sports
by Jay Coakley
There are four factors that inhibit critical research on college sports. These factors are located in
the university, the community, traditional academic disciplines, and the NCAA.
University Constraints
First of all, studying the immediate contexts of our everyday lives is challenging. We often
take for granted the events and routines that frame our daily experiences and don’t see them as
topics to be studied. Being immersed in these contexts makes it difficult to view them critically,
especially when faculty achieve enough status to have a vested interest in maintaining them as
they are. Studying valued traditions and rituals in our social worlds is especially challenging
because research often exposes their inconsistencies, internal contradictions, and taken-forgranted ideological foundations.
Secondly, it is risky to study traditions and rituals that serve the interests of powerful people
in our social worlds, including our campuses. As some of us know well, research can create quite
a fuss when it exposes the problematic aspects of intercollegiate sports. This is why studies of
intercollegiate sports, when they are done, tend to be historical and descriptive rather than critical
and analytical. Most faculty members understand that is it risky to do research that threatens
what is valued by powerful university administrators or influential university benefactors.
Therefore, unless they are asked to study intercollegiate sports, most researchers won’t
jeopardize their careers doing so when there are many other topics they can study. Why take the
chance of doing research that could attract negative attention from the people who sign your
paychecks, approve promotions and tenure awards, allocate university resources, or influence
campus decisions with major donations?
Third, when researchers cannot design studies that directly serve athletic department needs,
they’re not likely to gain access to much useful data on intercollegiate sports, especially data on
the experiences of athletes and the internal dynamics of teams and athletic departments. Relevant
here is that many athletic departments are characterized by institutionalized suspicion. Although
this suspicion is justifiable in some cases, it generally precludes collecting data from
representative samples of athletes or teams. Furthermore, some teams have cultures organized
around the belief that outsiders are not to be trusted because they cannot understand how the
athletes give meaning to their experiences and to each other as members of sport-specific social
worlds. These cultures are sustained partly by a vocabulary stressing that team members are
“family,” and that survival and success depend on sticking together and providing mutual
support in the face of a potentially hostile world. Further, the people in that world cannot know
what it means to be part of a select group that is dedicated to a sport and willing to pay the price,
make sacrifices, and play through pain for the sake of membership. Entering such a culture and
gaining the trust of athletes is impossible without the consent of the head coach and assistants.
This means that collecting valid and reliable data about intercollegiate sports requires
administrative, athletic department, and coach support in addition to the interest and commitment
of research faculty and their ability to develop rapport with people who create and live within
sport cultures – a rare combination indeed.
This point is not made to malign athletic departments or coaches. All of us know that it is
risky to allow others to critically scrutinize our lives when their interests may not overlap with
ours, reality television notwithstanding. Those who control access to data on intercollegiate
sports realize that researchers are more interested in discovery and knowledge production than
win-loss records and other athletic department priorities. Therefore, when coaches and athletic
directors have the power to do so, they close their teams and athletes off to researchers – unless,
of course, they commission a study in which the findings are reported only to them and never
made public. This is not new and it’s the reason why public knowledge is grounded in research
that focuses on the poor rather than the powerful; on employees rather than employers; and on
lower division undergraduate students in introductory courses rather than deans and
administrators.
The validity and reliability problems created by restricted access to data certainly discourage
many serious researchers from studying intercollegiate sports, apart from doing descriptive
studies or those designed specifically to enhance player performance and team success. There are
a few notable exceptions to this rule, including Patti and Peter Adler’s research summarized in
their book, Backboards and Blackboards: College Athletes and Role Engulfment (1991). But
most exceptions, including the Adlers’ research, involve studies of single teams or small,
unrepresentative samples of athletes; they may not be seen as credible by journal review boards;
and they may elicit nasty public critiques when they’re published. Mounting a defense against
these critiques is difficult when data are limited. In any case, these studies are not likely to earn
the merit needed to maintain one’s status as a member of a research faculty.
Discipline Constraints
Further limiting research on intercollegiate sports is the low priority given across nearly all
academic disciplines to physical culture as a research topic. Knowledge production in U.S.
universities has long been based on clear-cut mind-body distinctions. An uncritical acceptance of
Cartesian mind-body dualism has lead researchers to ignore bodies or relegate them to the repair
shops located in university medical schools or departments that focus on body mechanics. Unlike
scholars in Asian cultures, where widely used ontological approaches assume mind-body
integration as the foundation for being human, U.S. scholars seldom acknowledge that human
existence is embodied or that clearly embodied activities, such as sports, ought to be studied
seriously.
This intellectual climate has made physical education such an oxymoron that it has all but
disappeared from the curriculum in many U.S. schools -- from kindergarten to doctoral
programs. There are a few universities where it has survived under cover of kinesiology and
human performance departments, but it is not viewed as academically legitimate by researchers
who treat bodies as fleshy machines to be examined in laboratories part-by-disembodied-part. As
a result, sports and other forms of physical culture remain risky topics for research, and there is
little funding for those of us who think otherwise. As my colleagues have told me, “If you want
to study athletes, do a proposal with faculty from the medical school.” As a result, there are few
studies of the embodied student experience, on or off the field.
Community Constraints
Another source of factors inhibiting research on intercollegiate sports is the local community,
especially when powerful and influential people are boosters of intercollegiate sport programs
and want them to grow, maintain near perfect records, and attract more spectators. Many such
boosters have long accepted the unsupportable ideology that sports build character and are
essentially pure activities sullied only by “bad apples,” mostly in the form of undisciplined
athletes and unscrupulous outsiders such as agents or gamblers. This may lead them to help
recruit coaches who can effectively control athletes but it doesn’t make them supportive of
research that helps us understand the connection between intercollegiate sports and higher
education.
Research that threatens the interests of these boosters invites attention that few scholars are
prepared for or willing to confront. When this attention takes the form of critical attacks it often
has a negative impact on a scholar’s career and turns his or her everyday life into a tedious
exercise in self-defense. Defusing criticism with logic and data is difficult because it is usually
infused with emotions and grounded in the personal interests of people who don’t see the point
of asking critical questions about the things that provide them pleasure, prestige, and profit.
Furthermore, unless a researcher has an established relationship with journalists it is likely that
influential boosters can frame a public discussion of issues in ways that put a scholar at a distinct
disadvantage when trying to explain and defend a research project. When local media are
networked with regional and national media, the stakes associated with media coverage increase,
and defending one’s scholarly reputation can become a full time job. After seeing noteworthy
examples of this over the past two decades, why would scholars at any point in their academic
careers risk studying intercollegiate sports, unless, of course, they can present results acceptable
to all the non-academic stakeholders? But that’s no basis for quality research.
NCAA Constraints
Finally, the NCAA is a source of factors inhibiting research on intercollegiate sports. As an
organization, the NCAA is rightfully dedicated to representing the interests of its member
institutions. In this capacity it gathers massive amounts of quantitative data and has an able
research staff that constantly analyzes them to answer questions raised privately by NCAA
committees. Some of these data, often in numerically aggregated forms, appear in NCAA reports
but they have limited usefulness for faculty interested in doing analytical research. Apart from
working on an NCAA research project it is impossible for research faculty to gather data that
would rival data already possessed by the NCAA—or within its reach on relatively short notice.
To understand the practical implications of this issue, imagine that I pulled together a few
resources to do a qualitative study of the post-university lives of thirty former Division-I athletes
whose eligibility in football or men’s basketball expired before they graduated. My resources are
very limited, and I control expenses by including only former athletes who live in two
metropolitan areas that are less than a two hour drive from my office. My graduate assistant and I
work hard to collect valid and reliable data through in-depth interviews, and our analysis
identifies a clear pattern: that is, chronic career problems occur frequently among athletes who
received no post-eligibility support from their university and athletic departments as they
attempted to complete their degrees. In fact, the former athletes were unemployed for
significantly more months and had lower incomes and lower status jobs than peers who spent a
similar number of years in college. Imagine too, that this finding is reported in a widely read
newspaper article that sparks many letters to the editor. Journalists call me and ask for details
that I cannot provide without violating the privacy rights of the young men in my study. When I
respond in general terms, subsequent letters question my credibility and suggest that I have
personal reasons to put college sports in a bad light, or they accuse my university of being guilty
of using and then losing athletes in revenue producing sports.
Let’s ignore, for the moment, my university president, athletic director, and the highly paid
football and men’s basketball coaches, and ask: what if the NCAA has previously unreported
data showing that former athletes, on average, have relatively favorable career success rates?
Would they, in the interest of their member institutions call a press conference and present data
that contradict my study? If they did this, would others use those data to discredit my research
and raise questions about my status as a scholar?
This scenario may sound farfetched, but my point is that the NCAA is unwittingly and
unintentionally positioned to inhibit research on intercollegiate sports. This is mostly because
academic researchers do not know if the research questions they want to ask have already been
asked and answered privately by NCAA researchers working with internal committees, or if data
have already been collected by the NCAA and could be presented in forms that would be widely
defined as more credible than studies done by individual research faculty.
This scenario is not presented to question the motives of NCAA research staff or the integrity
of NCAA officers obliged to act in the service of their members. It is presented only to highlight
the politics of research, an issue that evokes interest from any of us sensitive to the hazards of
investigating issues that concern powerful others who possess resources and a position of
influence that no individual scholar can match. This doesn’t mean that research faculty cannot
effectively work with NCAA staff on particular NCAA-sponsored projects – something I’ll
suggest later in this paper; nor does it mean that the NCAA are not interested in certain types of
research done by academic scholars. However, it does mean that research faculty with a mandate
to produce knowledge, often by asking critical questions about the world, and NCAA researchers
with a mandate to ask questions consistent with the organization’s mission and the interests of
member institutions, have goals that often differ. This is not a minor point.
Minimizing Constraints and Creating Incentives
In light of constraints faced by research faculty, it’s not surprising that in-depth studies of
intercollegiate sports are relatively scarce despite President Brand’s observation that college
athletics has a profound impact on millions of people. I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say
that doing independent, critical research on intercollegiate sports can be a high-stakes exercise. It
triggers responses from powerful people who are motivated by strong emotional, ideological, and
financial interests in the status and public perception of sport teams and programs.
These constraints are not listed in the recent Knight Commission study of Faculty
Perceptions of Intercollegiate Athletics, but they can be used, in part, as explanations of the
findings presented in the commission’s report. For those who don’t know, this report is based on
a survey of 2000 tenured and tenure-track faculty members at twenty-three NCAA Division I
universities that are in the Football Bowl Subdivision, that is, Division IA. The sample was
intentionally drawn to over-represent faculty involved in campus governance and experienced in
teaching athletes in their courses. In other words, these are faculty most likely interested in and
concerned about intercollegiate sports on their campus.
The survey was designed by researchers at The University of Michigan’s Center for the
Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education. Its goal was to identify faculty beliefs and
concerns about intercollegiate sports, faculty satisfaction with the athletic programs on their
campus, faculty willingness to participate in efforts to rectify problems they perceive in those
programs, and an overall sense among faculty of the possibility for meaningful changes in the
athletic program on their campus.
In summary, the data from this study indicate that faculty see intercollegiate sports as an
auxiliary enterprise on their campus, tied as much to the entertainment industry as to education.
They are generally dissatisfied because they lack knowledge about intercollegiate programs and
have no control over decisions related to athletic departments. They are interested in
intercollegiate sports and the athletic department on their campus, but perceive them to be a low
priority faculty governance issue. Overall, faculty also believe that campus administrators do not
want their input on matters related to intercollegiate sports and that current decision-making
structures have no clearly defined role for faculty involvement. As a result they are generally
disengaged from sports on their campuses.
The authors of the Knight Commission report suggest that a lack of knowledge about key
athletic department policies and practices is the major factor constraining faculty engagement
with intercollegiate sports. To the extent that this is true, the first and most important strategy for
stimulating research on intercollegiate sports is to institutionalize the dissemination of
information about the athletic department, sport teams, and athletes to the faculty. This type of
transparency can be managed to respect the privacy rights of individuals involved, but it must be
done so that faculty acquire a knowledge foundation upon which to propose, initiate, and
complete quality research on intercollegiate sports. Additionally, this strategy should be planned
in ways that provide research faculty with some form of access to data collected by the NCAA.
Again, this can occur in many ways, but there’s an urgent need for NCAA officials and research
staff to meet with faculty representatives to discuss how this can occur so that faculty knowledge
of research possibilities is established at the same time that individual privacy rights are
respected. (I realize that the NCAA has ethical responsibilities in handling the data they collect,
but research faculty have similar ethical responsibilities and have established institutionalized
processes to insure that they are taken seriously when research is proposed and initiated.)
The second strategy for reducing constraints is to provide research grants. Researchers are
very predictable actors: they follow data and live on grants. Without data access and grant
support, they wither and are eventually trimmed from the academic vine. At present, most
research on intercollegiate sports is self-funded by those willing to risk that it won’t be a waste
of their personal resources or compromise their careers. But these studies seldom involve large
enough samples or data sets to make major contributions to knowledge or policy decisions;
consequently, some people might say that they lack the quality and objectivity that is often
attributed to research based on adequate funding and data. To combine possible funding with the
rising tension between perceived academic and athletic department needs would certainly make
more faculty across many disciplines willing to propose and initiate research. If they had support
they could do studies that are methodologically sound and able to withstand the critical scrutiny
of everyone from local boosters and sports writers to journal review boards and promotion and
tenure committees.
About this time last year we heard from President Brand that simply sponsoring a conference
and inviting scholars to submit manuscripts does not elicit enough quality research papers to fill
a conference program. But if there is a genuine interest in fostering quality research, there’s a
need to present concrete forms of support that reaffirm public statements. Funding is one form of
support; access to data is another; and yet another is to lobby the presidents, top academic
officers, athletic directors, and coaches in NCAA member institutions to facilitate research and
cooperate with researchers. Initiating this publication, the Journal of Intercollegiate Sports will,
by itself, do little to stimulate quality research; it will unify the literature, but it won’t stimulate
additional research without other incentives. (NOTE: There already are two journals devoted
exclusively to education or higher education and sport, and many other journals readily accept
articles on intercollegiate sports.)
A third strategy for fostering research is to commission brainstorming/focus groups
consisting of faculty, athletic directors, coaches, athletes, and journalists so each group can
identify and prioritize research topics from their perspectives. Collating these topics into one or
multiple lists would stimulate research projects and enable researchers to document the need for
the studies they propose in grant applications. Funding agencies often consider the relative
importance of research topics when awarding grants, so lists of systematically prioritized topics
would help researchers obtain the support they need to do quality research.
A fourth strategy would be to do a study of the experiences of faculty, academic support
personnel, and others who have experienced negative consequences when raising issues about
intercollegiate sports. If we knew more about the patterns of their experiences we might be able
to assist campus administrators in efforts to produce more transparency in programs related to
athletics. For example, maybe the NCAA needs an independent ombudsperson who can advocate
the interests of scholars and other university personnel concerned enough about issues of
academic integrity to do research and to identify problems.
Conclusion, But Not the End
There are real and important conflicts between the culture and goals of academic faculties
and the culture and goals of most athletic departments. As far as careers and paychecks go, the
definitions of merit in these two realms are very different. Ideas and beliefs about learning and
teaching as well the processes through which learning and teaching occur are very different.
Academic faculty question the educational relevance of sports because athletic departments and
teams don’t use traditional curricula or processes of evaluation that document learning and
teaching in terms allowing them to see “education in operation.”
Athletic department administrators and coaches feel that faculty do not understand what and
how they teach and cannot do research that would assist them in meeting the expectations that
dominate their lives. The width of the academia-athletic department culture gap varies from one
institution to another, but it’s a rare campus, even in the NCAA Division III category, where the
gap is narrow enough to allow regular, constructive, and policy-informing communication.
Let me give you an example. Now that I’m retired and don’t have a semester-to-semester
teaching schedule, I write and do public speaking. But my favorite activity is to go to a campus
for a week or two as a “scholar-in-residence,” present a general campus lecture and do a series of
presentations in classes covering topics related to the sociology of sport. I meet with students and
faculty and let people know that I’d also like to meet coaches and athletes, if people are willing.
When I was a scholar-in-residence for a week last April (2007) at Hobart and William Smith
Colleges in Geneva, NY, my visit was arranged by faculty who wanted to bridge the academiaathletic department culture gap and facilitate constructive conversations between people from
both sides. But for the reasons I just mentioned, this did not occur as they hoped. I even led a
focus group-like discussion involving faculty, athletic directors, coaches, and athletes—about 15
people in all. I’m not a trained focus group leader but issues from both sides of the gap were put
on the table so that we could at least begin to brainstorm possible gap reducing strategies. After
two hours of generally cordial interaction, we had progressed to the point where two faculty
members and two coaches agreed that they’d try to meet and discuss things further and in more
concrete terms. But I wasn’t optimistic that this commitment would lead to more than friendly
relationships that didn’t exist before, and I would have bet my honorarium that it wouldn’t
narrow the gap at an institutional level.
As I sat on the plane flying back to Denver, I wondered what I could have done to more
effectively instigate change at the institutional level. Further, I was discouraged by knowing that
if I failed to bridge the gap at Hobart and William Smith Colleges where commercialism and
dreams of playing professional sports were practically non-existent, what could I do elsewhere?
My sense of discouragement was exacerbated by the memory of another failure.
Between 1983 and 1990 I worked to found and administer a center designed in part to
prevent the formation of an academia-athletic department culture gap as a new intercollegiate
sport program was developed on campus. I was dedicated to this task; I did it for no pay and it
added about 15 hours a week to a workload that was already beyond normal expectations. But as
the athletic department grew the gap formed and grew consistently wider, despite what I thought
were creative strategies. [Actually, this is a long and interesting story.]
Then I began to wallow in discouragement when I thought of what could be done at the
University of Colorado campus in Boulder where a lawsuit involving the football team and its
staff recently settled for an amount that would fund at least 100 good studies of how to bridge the
academia-athletic department culture gap. The lawyers’ fees paid by the University’s insurance
policy would fund at least an additional 100 major research projects. For me or anyone else to
think that funds would be dedicated to such research rather than an insurance policy to cover the
next such lawsuit is unrealistic – and probably pure fantasy.
After revisiting this essay in 2014, I can say that there is much we still need to know about
the sport experiences of the young people on thousands of diverse and variously organized
intercollegiate teams. How do they integrate those experiences into their lives? When does this
integration serve, interfere with, or directly undermine educational goals? How can research
encourage those whose ideas are currently based on sport-builds-character ideologies think more
critically about intercollegiate sports and education?
I could add pages of additional research questions, but they will not inspire any studies if the
NCAA and “corporate universities” concerned with their brand expect that findings might not
provide positive publicity for them.
In fact, the scholarly colloquium and the faculty advisory group that were independently
created with funding approved by NCAA president Myles Brand were short-lived. After Brand’s
death in 2009 the new administration of the NCAA told the faculty advisory group that it was too
expensive to maintain, even though revenues were increasing for the organization.
In the face of multiple lawsuits and the possible implosion of the entire organization, it was
clear that critical research was not welcome and faculty were not viewed as helpful advisors.
©2014 Jay Coakley
Reading 2.
A brief history of NCAA academic reforms
NCAA Reform Timeline:
 1983 - NCAA passes Proposition 48 setting for the first time minimum standards for
first-year athletes to be eligible to play on any Division I team.
 1986 - Proposition 48 takes effect. First-year students are eligible to participate in sports
at a Division I school only if they have a 2.0 GPA in 11 core subjects in high school and
a score of 700 on the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) or 15 on the American College Test
(ACT). Proposition 48 permits students who meet only one of the requirements
(SAT/ACT score or a 2.0 GPA in core courses) to be accepted at college and given
athletic aid if they graduated from high school with a 2.0 GPA in all their courses. But
these partial qualifiers are not permitted to work out with their teams during their first
year, and they have to forfeit one year of athletic eligibility, which means they can play
for only three years instead of the normal four years.
 1990 - U.S. Congress passes a law requiring all colleges to make public their athlete
graduation rates starting in 1991; this was known as the “Student Right-to-Know Act.”
 1991 - USA Today and major media companies publish data on athlete graduation rates;
this creates an embarrassing situation for many universities with low rates.
 1991 - The Knight Foundation Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics publishes its
report, "A New Model for Intercollegiate Athletics." The report emphasizes that
university presidents must control big-time sports, and that intercollegiate programs must
have academic and financial integrity.
 1993 - NCAA boosts Proposition 48 initial-eligibility requirements to a 2.5 (not 2.0) high
school GPA in 13 (not 11) core courses and a minimum score of 68 (not 60) on the new
ACT scale, or 820 (not 700) on the new SAT scale.
 1994 - Passage of the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act requiring all institutions of
higher education that receive certain forms of federal support and have an intercollegiate
athletic program to provide annual reports on gender and resource allocation. This federal

requirement enables the government and other interested parties to monitor gender equity
and enforce compliance.
1996 - New initial-eligibility requirements take effect. All high school students wishing
to play sports at Division I or II schools must register and be certified by an NCAA
Initial-Eligibility Clearinghouse. An index of GPA and test scores is used to determine
"qualifiers" and partial qualifiers." The lower the GPA is, the higher the test scores must
be. For example, a student with a 2.0 high school GPA must score an 86 on the ACT or a
1010 on the SAT to be fully eligible; a student with a 2.75 GPA needs a 59 on the ACT
and a 720 on the SAT. Students failing to meet the standards cannot play in games,
practice with a team, or receive athletic grants during their first year, although they can
get need-based financial aid.
Other NCAA changes in the 1990s
 Universities were no longer allowed to have dormitories exclusively for athletes
 Training table for athletes was limited to one meal a day
 New limits were placed on the length of seasons and the number of hours teams are
allowed to practice during a week
 New definitions of "academic progress" were formulated and universities were required
to use them each year to determine student-athlete eligibility for that year
 Degree completion grants were established for selected students who had completed
athletic eligibility and remained 30 or less hours away from graduation
 Athletic departments were required to conduct annual exit interviews with studentathletes as part of a team-by-team self-assessment process
 Junior college transfers must have 48 credits and a two-year degree to be eligible.
Reforms, 2000-present
 2003 – The Progress Toward Degree regulations were modified so that athletes had to
meet minimum GPA standards and complete 40% of their degree requirements by the
end of year two, 60% by end of year three, and 80% by end of year four.
 2004 – The Academic Progress Rate (APR) was established to measure how all
scholarship athletes on a particular sport perform term by term during a school year. It is
a composite team measurement based upon how individual team members do
academically. This went beyond rules for the eligibility of individuals and established a
minimum success rate for teams thereby creating pressure on the schools to be more
proactive in promoting academic success. Failure to meet the minimum APR standard
results in loss of scholarships for a team; successive failures result in restrictions on
scholarships and practice time for a team, loss of eligibility to play in post season
tournaments, and eventual restrictions on membership in the NCAA.
 2005 - The Graduation Success Rate (GSR) was established for Division I schools. This
rate takes into account athletes who leave a school in good academic standing and those
who transfer in and graduate.
 2012 – The minimum APR standard increases so that teams must increase their academic
progress rate to avoid sanctions.
 2013 – The minimum APR standard increases again so that teams must increase their
academic progress rate to avoid sanctions.

2015 – The minimum APR standard increases a third time so that teams must increase
their academic progress rate to avoid sanctions.
The increases in the minimum APR standard puts increased pressure on teams to boost their
academic performance if they wish to play in post-season tournaments. This is useful, but it also
leads teams and athletic departments and even universities to seek ways to increase the grades of
athletes on particular teams.
In some cases—we don’t know how many—this has pushed individuals to cross ethical lines
in desperate efforts to make sure that teams remain eligible for post-season play and the
increasingly large financial benefits that come with post season games.
Enforcing the spirit of the APR is difficult unless people inside universities or investigative
journalists blow the whistle on people engaged in or supporting academic cheating to boost
athletes’ grades. But the personal cost of blowing the whistle can be great, because many people
see this as an attack on the university rather than simply exposing wrongdoing.
©2014 Jay Coakey
Reading 3.
School–community relations
Interscholastic sport programs do two things in the realm of school-community relations: they
attract attention, and they provide entertainment. In other words, interscholastic sports help make
the school a part of community life, and they help bridge the gap between "town and gown" that
exists in some communities. One of the only times people who do not have school-aged children
hear about the local high school or college is when there is a news story about one of its sport
teams. Even for some of the parents of students, the fates of varsity teams may be of more
noticeable concern than the fates of academic programs. Sports are an easy connecting point with
schools and they may become "identity pegs" for significant numbers of people in a local
community. Through sports, people can maintain an interest in their local high school or college
without having to know about all the complex dimensions of academic life.
It is easy to see that sports can connect schools to communities, but we do not know if these
connections benefit academic programs or the achievement of educational goals. Benefits are
most likely in small towns, where local attachments to high schools are strongly reinforced by
school teams. In the case of larger high schools in metropolitan areas, and universities with bigtime sport programs, people may attend games and read team scores in the paper, but their
attachments to the schools themselves seldom go beyond occasional attendance at games.
Do high schools and universities have an obligation to provide community entertainment
through sports? It is difficult to argue this case, even though some communities seemingly have
become dependent on school sports for weekend enjoyment. When varsity sports are defined as
entertainment, the needs of student-athletes and students in general often become secondary to
the need to put on a good show. This has happened in a few high schools and more than a few
intercollegiate programs around the United States, and it usually subverts the achievement of
educational goals.
©2014 Jay Coakey
Reading 4.
Bibliography of research on college sports
Research on college sports through 2008:
Acosta, R.V., & Carpenter, L.J. (1992). As the years go by—coaching opportunities in the 1990s.
Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 63, 3: 36–41.
Acosta, R.V., & Carpenter, L.J. (1996). Women in intercollegiate sport: A longitudinal study—nineteen
year update, 1977–1996. Brooklyn, NY: Photocopied report.
Acosta, Acosta, R.V., & Carpenter, L.J. (2000). Women in intercollegiate sport: A longitudinal study—
twenty three year update, 1977–2000. Brooklyn, NY: Photocopied report.
Acosta, Acosta, R.V., & Carpenter, L.J. (2004). Women in intercollegiate sport: A longitudinal,
national study twenty seven year update, 1977–2004. http://webpages.charter.net/womeninsport/
Adler, P.A., & Adler, P. (1991). Backboards and blackboards: College athletes and role engulfment.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Alfred University. (1999). Initiation rites and athletics: A national survey of NCAA sports teams. See
www.alfred.edu/news/html/hazing_study.html
Althouse, R., & Brooks, D. (2000). Racism in college athletics: The African American athlete’s
experience (Second ed.). Morgantown, W. Virginia: Fitness Information Technology.
Anderson, D.J., & Cheslock, J.J. (2004). Institutional strategies to achieve gender equity in
intercollegiate athletics: Does title IX harm male athletes? The American Economic Review, 94(2),
307–311.
Anderson, D.J., Cheslock, J.J., & Ehrenberg, R.G. (2006). Gender equity in intercollegiate athletics:
Determinants of title IX compliance. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(2), 225–250.
Andre, J., & James, D. (1991). Rethinking college athletics. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Andrew, D.P., & Hums, M.A. (In press). Leadership behavior and women’s collegiate tennis:
Perspectives from leaders and followers. Women’s Sport and Physical Activity Journal. Special
issue on Leadership.
Armstrong-Doherty, A.J. (1995). Athletic directors’ perceptions of environmental control over
interuniversity athletics. Sociology of Sport Journal, 12, 75–95.
Bacon, V.L., & Russell, P.J.(2004). Addiction and the college athlete: The Multiple Addictive
Behaviors Questionnaire (MABQ) with college athletes. The Sport Journal, 7(2), online at
www.thesportjournal.org/2004Journal/Vol7-No2/
Basten, J. (2007). Air ball: American education’s failed experiment with elite athletics (review). The
Review of Higher Education I, (4), 472–473.
Baucom, C., & Lantz, C. (2001). Faculty attitudes toward male division II student-athletes. Journal of
Sport Behavior, 24(3), 265–276.
Baxter, V., Margavio, A.V., & Lambert, C. (1996). Competition, legitimation, and the regulation of
intercollegiate athletics. Sociology of Sport Journal, 13(1), 51–64.
Benedict, J. & Klein, A. (1997). Arrest and conviction rates for athletes accused of sexual assault.
Sociology of Sport Journal, 14, 86–94.
Benford, R.D. (2007). The college sports reform movement: Reframing the “edutainment” industry.
Sociological Quarterly, 48(1), 1–28; online, http://www.blackwellsynergy.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2007.00068.x
Benson, K.F. (2000). Constructing academic inadequacy: African American athletes’ stories of
schooling. The Journal of Higher Education (Special Issue: The Shape of Diversity), 71(2), 223–
246.
Berghorn, F.J., Yetman, N.R., & Hanna, W.E. (1988). Racial participation and integration in men’s and
women’s intercollegiate basketball: Continuity and change, 1958–1985. Sociology of Sport
Journal, 5(2), 107–24.
Bernard, P. (2003). The athletics equation: The president’s bad dream. Change, 32–33.
Best, C. (1985). Differences in social values between athletes and nonathletes. Research Quarterly for
Exercise and Sport, 56, 366–369.
Bhullar, J., & Chelladurai, P. (1988). Priorities of intercollegiate sports: Perceptions of staff and
students in selected Indian colleges: Comparisons with results in Canadian studies. Journal of
Comparative Physical Education and Sport, 10(2), 12–20.
Blann, F.W. (1985). Intercollegiate athletic competition and students’ educational and career plans.
Journal of College Student Personnel, 26(2), 115–118.
Blinde, E.M., & Greendorfer, S.L. (1992). Conflict and the college sport experience of women athletes.
Women in Sport & Physical Activity Journal 1(1), 97–114.
Blinde, E.M., Greendorfer, S.L., & Shanker, R.J. (1991). Differential media coverage of men’s and
women’s intercollegiate basketball: Reflection of gender ideology. Journal of Sport and Social
Issues, 15(2), 98–114.
Bloom v. NCAA, 93 P.3d 621 (Colo. App. 2004). (Upholding NCAA authority to regulate amateurism
in intercollegiate athletics, while also holding that NCAA has legal duty of good faith and fair
dealing in applying its eligibility rules to student-athletes).
Blum, D.E. (1996, February 9). Devout athletes. The Chronicle of Higher Education 42(22), A35–A36.
Bowen, W.G., Kurzweil, M.A., Tobin, E.M., & Pichler, S.C. (2005). Equity and excellence in
American higher education. Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia.
Bowen, W.G., & Levin, S.A. (2003). Reclaiming the game: college sports and educational values.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Boxill, J. (1993–94). Title IX and gender equity. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, XX–XX1, 23–31.
Braddock, J. (1978). Television and college football: In black and white. Journal of Black Studies, 8(3),
369–80.
Brake, D., & Catlin, E. (1996). The path of most resistance: The long road toward gender equity in
intercollegiate athletics. Duke Journal of Gender Law and Policy, 3(1), 61-71.
Branch, D. (1990). Athletic director leader behavior as a predictor of intercollegiate organizational
effectiveness. Journal of Sport Management, 4, 161–173.
Branch, D., Jr., & Crow, R.B. (1994). Intercollegiate athletics: Back to the future? Sport Marketing
Quarterly, 3(3), 13–21.
Brand, M. (2001). Academic first: Reforming Intercollegiate Athletics. Address delivered to the
National Press Club, January 23, 2001. Vital Speeches of the Day, 67(12; April 1, 2001), 267–271.
Brand, M. (2006). The role and value of intercollegiate athletics in universities. Journal of the
Philosophy of Sport, 33(1), 9–20.
Bredemeier, B.J., & Shields, D.L. (1984). Divergence in moral reasoning about sports and everyday
life. Sociology of Sport Journal, 1(4), 348–357.
Briody, J. (1996). Perceptions of the impact of intercollegiate athletics on academic reputation.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation: University of Connecticut.
Brooks, D., & Althouse, R. (Eds.). (2000). African American head coaches and administrators:
Progress but . . .? In D.D. Brooks & R.C. Althouse, Eds., Racism in college athletics: The AfricanAmerican athlete’s experience (pp. 85–118). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Brooks, D., & Althouse, R. (2000). Fifty years after Jackie Robinson: Equal access but unequal
outcome. In D. Brooks & R. Althouse (Eds.), Racism in college athletics: The African American
athlete’s experience (pp.307-320). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Brooks, D., & Althouse, R. (Eds.). (2000). Racism in college athletics: The African-American athlete’s
experience. Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Brooks, D., Althouse, R., & Tucker, D. (1998). African American male head coaches: In the “red
zone,” but can they score? In G. Sailes, Ed., African Americans in sport (pp. 217–240). New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Brown, K.T., Brown, T.N., Jackson, J.S., Sellers R.M., & Manuel, W.J. (2003). Teammates on and off
the field? Contact with Black teammates and the racial attitudes of White student athletes. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 33(7), 1379–1403.
Brown, T.N., Jackson, J.S., Brown, K.T., Sellers, R.M., Keiper, S., & Manuel, W.J. (2003). “There’s no
race on the playing field”: Perceptions of racial discrimination among White and Black athletes.
Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 27(2), 162–183.
Broyles, J.F., & Hay, R.D. (1979). Administration of athletic programs: A managerial approach.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bruening, J., & Dixon, M. (in press). Situating work-family negotiations within a life course
perspective: Insights on the gendered experiences of NCAA Division I head coaching mothers.
Sex Roles.
Bruening, J., & Dixon, M.A. (in press). Work–family conflict in coaching II: Managing role conflict.
Journal of Sport Management.
Bruening, J., Dixon, M., Tiell, B., Sweeney, K., Lough, N., & Osbourne, B. (in press). The role of the
supervisor in the work-life culture of collegiate athletics. International Journal of Sport
Management.
Buysse, J.M., & Embser-Herbert, M.S. (2004). Constructions of gender in sport: An analysis of
intercollegiate media guide cover photographs. Gender and Society, 18(1), 66–81.
Carstensen, P.C., & Olszowski, P. (1995). Antitrust law, student-athletes, and the NCAA: Limiting the
scope and conduct of private economic regulation. Wisconsin Law Review, 1995, (3), 545.
Carter, W.B. (2000). Student-athlete welfare in a restructured NCAA, 2. Virginia Journal of Sport &
Law, 1.
Caughron, R.L. (2001). An historical perspective of reform in intercollegiate athletics. International
Sports Journal, 5(1), 1–16.
Chelladurai, P., & Danylchuk, K.E. (1984). Operative goals of intercollegiate athletics: Perceptions of
athletic administrators. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Science, 9, 33– 41.
Chelladurai, P., Haggerty, T.R., Campbell, L., & Wall, S. (1981). A factor analytic study of
effectiveness criteria in intercollegiate athletics. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Sciences, 6,
81–86.
Chelladurai, P., Inglis, S.E., & Danylchuk, K.E. (1984). Priorities in intercollegiate athletics:
Development of a scale. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 55, 74–79.
Chelladurai, P., & Ogasawara, E. (2003). Satisfaction and commitment of American and Japanese
collegiate coaches. Journal of Sport Management, 17, 62–73.
Chelladurai, P., Ogasawara, E., & Fink, J.S. (2006). Job Satisfaction and commitment among NCAA
coaches. International Journal of Sport Management, 7, 307–326.
Chelladurai, P., & Riemer, H. (1997). A classification of facets of athlete satisfaction. Journal of Sport
Management, 11, 133–159.
Childs, A.W. (1987). Athletic and academic policy in the context of a new league. Academe, 34–38.
Choi, J., & Sagas, M. (2007). Gender diversity and service quality in NCAA Division I women’s teams.
The Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in Education, 1, 195–206.
Choi, J.H., Sagas, M., Park, S.H., & Cunningham, G.B. (2007). The effects of transformational
leadership on job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship
behavior. International Journal of Sport Management, 8, 427–446.
Christy, K., Pastore, D., & Seifried, C.S. (in press). Intercollegiate athletics: A preliminary study
examining the opinions on the impact of the academic performance rate (APR). Journal of Issues
in Interscholastic Athletics.
Claussen, C.L. (1993). HIV positive athletes and the disclosure dilemma for athletic trainers. Journal of
Legal Aspects of Sport, 3(2), 25–34.
Claussen, C.L. (1995). Title IX and employment discrimination in coaching intercollegiate athletics.
The University of Miami Entertainment & Sports Law Review, 12(2), 149–168.
Claussen, C.L. (1996). Ethnic team names and logos—is there a legal solution? Marquette Sports Law
Journal, 6(2), 409–421.
Claussen, C.L. (1997). Measuring women’s interest in participation in intercollegiate athletics: A
critique. Journal of Legal Aspects of Sport, 7(1), 5–11.
Claussen, C.L. (2007). Female sport participation in America: The effectiveness of Title IX after 35
years. International Sports Law Journal, 7(3–4), 79–83.
Claussen, C.L., Cuneen, J., Gaskins, B.P., & Lengfelder, J.R. (1999). Institutional control of athletics:
Roles and functions of NCAA Division I-A intercollegiate athletics committees. International
Sports Journal, 3(2), 80–92.
Claussen, C.L., & Lehr, C. (2002). Decision making authority of senior woman administrators.
International Journal of Sport Management, 3(3), 215–228.
Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics. (2004). Campus athletics governance, the faculty role:
Principles, proposed rules and guidelines. Retrieved March 3, 2007 from
http://www.neuro.uoregon.edu/~tublitz/COIA/Governance.html
Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics. (2005). Academic integrity in intercollegiate athletics:
Principles, rules and best practices. Retrieved March 3, 2007 from
http://www.neuro.uoregon.edu/~tublitz/COIA/AID.pdf
Cockley, W., & Roswal, G. (1994). A comparison study of faculty members’ perceived knowledge and
satisfaction regarding NCAA athletic programs. Journal of Sport Behavior, 17(4), 217–223.
Cockley, W.T., & Roswal, G.M. (1994). A comparison study of faculty members’ perceived knowledge
and satisfaction regarding NCAA athletic programs. Journal of Sport Behavior, 17, 217–226.
Cohen v. Brown University, 101 F.3d 155 (1st Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1186 (1997) (adopting
3-prong test to assess university compliance with Title IX requirement that both genders have
equal athletic participation opportunities).
Connolly, M.R. (2000). What’s in a name? A Historical look at Native American related nicknames and
symbols at three US universities. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(5), 515–547.
Covell, D., & Barr, C.A. (2001). The ties that bind: Presidential involvement with the development of
NCAA Division I initial eligibility legislation. The Journal of Higher Education 72(4), 414–452.
Cozzillio, M.J. (1989). The athletic scholarship and the college national letter of intent: A contract by
any other name. Wayne Law Review, 35, 1275.
Craughron, R.L. (2001). An historical perspective of reform in intercollegiate athletics. International
Sports Journal, 5, 1–16.
Crosset, Todd W., Benedict, J.R., & McDonald, M.A. (1995). Male student-athletes reported for sexual
assault: A survey of campus police departments and judicial affairs offices. Journal of Sport and
Social Issues, 19,126–40.
Cunningham, G.B. (2002). Examining the relationship among Miles and Snow’s strategic types and
measures of organizational effectiveness in NCAA Division I athletic departments. International
Review for the Sociology of Sport, 37, 159–175.
Cunningham, G.B. (2003). Human resources as sources of competitive advantage: A resource-based
view of the athletic department. Applied Research in Coaching and Athletics Annual, 18, 37–58.
Cunningham, G.B. (2003). Media coverage of women’s sport: A new look at an old problem. Physical
Educator, 60(2), 43–49.
Cunningham, G.B. 2004. Already aware of the glass ceiling: Race related effects of perceived
opportunity on the career choices of college athletes. Journal of African American Studies, 7(1),
57–71.
Cunningham, G.B. (2004). Economic Impact of Texas A&M Football. SMRG Report 2004–04.
Cunningham, G.B. (2005). The importance of a common in–group identity in ethnically diverse groups.
Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 9, 251–260.
Cunningham, G.B. (2006). Does structure make a difference? The effects of organizational structure on
job satisfaction and organizational commitment. International Journal of Sport Management, 7,
327–346.
Cunningham, G.B. (2006). Examining the relationships among coping with change, demographic
dissimilarity, and championing behavior. Sport Management Review, 9, 253–270.
Cunningham, G.B. (2006). The relationship among commitment to change, coping with change, and
turnover intentions. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15, 29–45.
Cunningham, G.B. (2007). Opening the black box: The influence of perceived diversity and a common
in–group identity in diverse groups. Journal of Sport Management, 21, 58–78.
Cunningham, G.B. (2007). Perceptions as reality: The influence of actual and perceived demographic
dissimilarity. Journal of Business and Psychology, 22, 79–89.
Cunningham, G.B. (in press). Creating and sustaining gender diversity in sport organizations. Sex
Roles.
Cunningham, G.B. (in press). The moderating effect of diversity strategy on the relationship between
racial diversity and organizational performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology.
Cunningham, G.B., & Ashley, F.B. (2001). Isomorphic tendencies in NCAA athletic departments: The
use of competing theories and advancement of theory. Sport Management Review, 4, 47–63.
Cunningham, G.B., Bruening, J.E., & Straub, T. (2006). Examining the under-representation of African
Americans in NCAA Division I head–coaching positions. Journal of Sport Management, (20)
387–417.
Cunningham, G.B., Choi, J.H., & Sagas, M. (in press). Personal identity and perceived dissimilarity
among college athletes. Group Dynamics.
Cunningham, G.B., & Dixon, M.A. (2003). New perspectives concerning performance appraisals of
intercollegiate coaches. Quest, 55, 177–192.
Cunningham, G.B., Doherty, A.J., & Gregg, M.J. (2007). Using social cognitive career theory to
understand head coaching intentions among assistant coaches of women’s teams. Sex Roles, 56,
365–372.
Cunningham, G.B., Fink, J.S., & Kenix, L.J. (2008). Choosing an endorser for a women’s sporting
event: The interaction of attractiveness and expertise. Sex Roles, 58, 371–378.
Cunningham, G.B., Fink, J.S., & Sagas, M. (2005). Extensions and further examination of the job
embeddedness construct. Journal of Sport Management, 19, 319–335.
Cunningham, G.B., & Fitzgerald, A.O. (2006). The influence of message content on reactions to Title
IX. Applied Research in Coaching and Athletics Annual, 21, 238–258.
Cunningham, G.B., Keiper, P.E., Sagas, M., & Ashley, F.B. (2001). Initial reliability of the Coaching
Isomorphism Questionnaire for NCAA coaches. Psychological Reports, 88, 332–334.
Cunningham, G.B., & Kwon, H. (2003). The theory of planned behavior and intentions to attend a sport
event. Sport Management Review, 6, 127–145.
Cunningham, G.B., & Mahoney, K.L. (2004). Self-efficacy of part-time employees in university
athletics: The influence of organizational commitment, valence of training, and training
motivation. Journal of Sport Management, 18, 59–73.
Cunningham, G.B., & Rivera, C.A. (2001). Structural designs within American intercollegiate athletic
departments. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 4, 369–390.
Cunningham, G.B., & Sagas, M. (2002). The differential effects of human capital for male and female
Division I basketball coaches. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 73, 489–495.
Cunningham, G.B., & Sagas, M. (2002). Utilizing a different perspective: Brand equity and media
coverage of intercollegiate athletics. International Sports Journal, 6, 134–145.
Cunningham, G.B., & Sagas, M. (2003). Occupational turnover intent among coaches of women’s
teams: The role of organizational work experiences. Sex Roles, 49, 185–190.
Cunningham, G.B., & Sagas, M. (2003). Treatment discrimination among coaches of women’s teams.
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 74, 455–466.
Cunningham, G.B., & Sagas, M. (2004). The effect of group diversity on organizational commitment.
International Sports Journal, 8(1), 124–131.
Cunningham, G.B., & Sagas, M. (2004). Examining the main and interactive effects of deep– and
surface–level diversity on job satisfaction and organizational turnover intentions. Organizational
Analysis, 12, 319–332.
Cunningham, G.B., & Sagas, M. (2004). Group diversity, occupational commitment, and occupational
turnover intentions among NCAA Division IA football coaching staffs. Journal of Sport
Management, 18, 236–254.
Cunningham, G.B., & Sagas, M. (2004). People make the difference: The influence of human capital
and diversity on team performance. European Sport Management Quarterly, 4, 3–22.
Cunningham, G.B., & Sagas, M. (2004). Racial differences in occupational turnover intent among
NCAA Division IA assistant football coaches. Sociology of Sport Journal 21, 1: 84–92.
Cunningham, G.B., & Sagas, M. (2005). Access discrimination in intercollegiate athletics. Journal of
Sport and Social Issues, 29(2), 148–163.
Cunningham, G.B., & Sagas, M. (2005). Diversified dyads in the coaching profession. International
Journal of Sport Management, 6, 305–323.
Cunningham, G.B., & Sagas, M. (2006). The influence of person–organization fit, leader–member
exchange, and organizational commitment on organizational turnover intentions. International
Journal of Sport Management, 7, 31–49.
Cunningham, G.B., & Sagas, M. (2007). Gender differences in the impact of treatment discrimination.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 3010–3024.
Cunningham, G.B., & Sagas, M. (2007). Perceived treatment discrimination among coaches: The
influence of race and sport coached. International Journal of Sport Management, 8, 1–20.
Cunningham, G.B., & Sagas, M. (2008). Gender and sex diversity in sport organizations: Introduction
to a special issue. Sex Roles, 58, 3–9.
Cunningham, G.B., Sagas, M., & Ashley, F.B. (2001). Occupational commitment and intent to leave
the coaching profession: Differences according to race. International Review for the Sociology of
Sport, 16, 131–148.
Cunningham, G.B., Sagas, M., & Ashley, F.B. (2003). Coaching self-efficacy, desire to head coach,
and occupational turnover intent: Gender differences between NCAA assistant coaches of
women’s teams. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 34, 125–137.
Cunningham, G.B., Sagas, M., Sartore, M.L., Amsden, M.L., & Schellhase, A. (2004). Gender
representation in the NCAA News: Is the glass half full or half empty? Sex Roles, 50, 861–870.
Cunningham, G.B., & Waltemyer, D.S. (2007). The moderating effect of outcome interdependence on
the relationship between task conflict and group performance. International Journal of Sport
Psychology, 38, 163–177.
Curry, T. (1998). Beyond the locker room: Campus bars and college athletes. Sociology of Sport
Journal, 15(3), 205–215.
Curry, T., & Strauss, R.H. (1994). A little pain never hurt anybody: A photo-essay on the normalization
of sport injuries. Sociology of Sport Journal, 11(2), 195–208.
Danylchuk, K.E., & Chelladurai, P. (1999). The nature of managerial work in Canadian intercollegiate
athletics. Journal of Sport Management, 13, 148–166.
Davis, R.N. (1991). Athletic reform: Missing the bases in university athletics. Capital University Law
Review, 20, 597–610.
Davis, T. (1992). Examining educational malpractice jurisprudence: Should a cause of action be created
for student-athletes? Denver Law Review, 69, 57.
Davis, T. (1994). Intercollegiate athletics: Competing models and conflicting realities, Rutgers Law
Journal, 25, 269.
Davis, T. (1995). The myth of the superspade: The persistence of racism in college athletics, Fordham
Urban Law Journal, 22, 625.
Davis, T., & Parker, T. (1998). Student-athlete sexual violence against women: Defining the limits of
institutional responsibility. Washington and Lee Law Review 55(Winter), 55-115; online,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3655/is_199801/ai_n8776061/pg_1
DeNeui, D.L., & Sachau, D.A. (1996). Spectator enjoyment of aggression in intercollegiate hockey
games. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 20(1), 69–77.
Diacin, M.J., Parks, J.B., & Allison, P.C. (2003). Voices of male athletes on drug use, drug testing, and
the existing order in intercollegiate athletics. Journal of Sport Behavior, 26(1), 1–16.
Dixon, M.A. (2000). Do cheaters ever prosper? An exploratory investigation of the reasoning behind
NCAA rule violations. Future Focus, 21(2), 28–34.
Dixon, M.A., & Bruening, J. (2005). Perspectives on work–family conflict: A review and integrative
approach. Sport Management Review, 8, 227–254.
Dixon, M.A., & Bruening, J. (2006). Retaining quality workers: A case study of the struggle to achieve
work–family balance. Sport Management Review, 9, 79–103.
Dixon, M.A., & Bruening, J. (2007). Work–family conflict in coaching: A top–down perspective.
Journal of Sport Management, 21, 377–406.
Dixon, M.A., Noe, R., & Pastore, D. (in press). Human resource management systems and
organizational effectiveness in non-profit sport organizations. International Journal of Sport
Management.
Dixon, M.A., Noe, R.A., & Pastore, D.L. (2004). Human resource management systems in NCAA
Division III athletic departments: The relationship to departmental effectiveness. Journal of
Contemporary Athletics, 1, 71–98.
Dixon, M.A., & Sagas, M. (2007). The relationship between organizational support, work–family
conflict, and the job–life satisfaction of university coaches. Research Quarterly for Exercise and
Sport, 78, 236–247.
Dixon, M.A., Turner, B.A., Mahony, D., & Pastore, D.L. (2003). Rule violations in intercollegiate
athletics: A qualitative investigation utilizing an organizational justice framework. Journal of
Academic Ethics, 1, 59–90.
Dixon, M.A., Turner, B.A., Miller, L., Harrison, T, & Pace, D. (2004). Coaches’ perceptions of rule
violations in intercollegiate athletics: An empirical investigation. Journal of Contemporary
Athletics, 1(3), 257–279.
Dixon, M.A., Turner, B.A., Pastore, D.L., & Mahony, D.F. (2003). Rules violations in intercollegiate
athletics: A qualitative study utilizing an organizational justice framework. Journal of Academic
Ethics, 1, 59–90.
Dowling, W. (2007). Confessions of a spoilsport: My life and hard times fighting sports corruption at
an old eastern university. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press.
Doyle, A. (2004). “Fighting whiskey and immorality” at Auburn: The politics of southern football,
1919–1927. Southern Cultures, 10(3), 6–30.
Duderstadt, J. 2003. Intercollegiate athletics and the American university: A university president’s
perspective. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Edwards, H. (1985). Beyond symptoms: Unethical behavior in American collegiate sport and the
problem of the color line. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 9, 3–13.
Edwards, H. (1993). Succeeding against the odds. Black Issues in Higher Education, 10– 20, 136.
Edwards, H. (2000). Crisis of black athletes on the eve of the twenty-first century. In P.B. Miller &
D.K. Wiggins (Eds.), Sport and the color line: Black athletes and race relations in twentiethcentury America (pp. 345–350). New York: Routledge.
Eitzen, D.S. (1987). The educational experiences of intercollegiate student-athletes. Journal of Sport
and Social Issues, 11(1–2), 15–30.
Eitzen, D.S., & Zinn, M.B. (1989). The de-athleticization of women: The naming and gender marking
of collegiate sport teams. Sociology of Sport Journal, 6(4), 362–370.
Engstrand, G. 1995. Faculty control of athletics: A case study of the University of Minnesota.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota.
Engstrom, C.H., & Sedlacek, W.E. (1991). A study of prejudice toward university student-athletes.
Journal of Counseling and Development, 70, 189–193.
Engstrom, C., Sedlacek, W., & McEwen, M. (1995). Faculty attitudes toward male revenue and
nonrevenue student-athletes. Journal of College Student Development, 36(3), 217–227.
Farnell, B. (2004). Zero-sum game: An update on the Native American mascot controversy at the
University of Illinois. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 28(2), 212–215.
Feezell, R., & Clifford, C. (1997). Coaching for Character. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Fink, J.S., & Cunningham, G.B. (2005). The effects of racial and gender dyad diversity on work
experiences of university athletics personnel. International Journal of Sport Management, 6, 199–
213.
Fink, J.S., Cunningham, G.B., & Kensicki, L.J. (2004). Utilizing athletes as endorsers to sell women’s
sport: Attractiveness versus expertise. Journal of Sport Management, 18, 350–367.
Finkenberg, M.E., & Moode, F.M. (1996). College students’ perceptions of the purposes of sport.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 82, 19–22.
Fizel, J., & Fort, R. (Eds.). (2004). Economics of college sports: An overview. Westport, CT:
Greenwood Publishing.
Fleisher, A., Goff, B., & Tollison, R. (1992). The National Collegiate Athletic Association: A study in
cartel behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Fraleigh, W. (1984). Right actions in sport: Ethics for contestants. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Francis, L.P. (1993-94). Title IX: Equality for women’s sports?” Journal of the Philosophy of Sport,
XX–X1, 32–47.
Frank, R.H. 2004. Challenging the myth: A review of the links among college athletic success, student
quality, and donations. Miami, FL: Knight Foundation Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics;
www.knightfdn.org/
French, P. (2004). Ethics and college sports: Ethics, sports, and the university. Lanham, MD: Rowman
and Littlefield.
Frey, J.H. (1994). Deviance of organizational subunits: The case of college athletic departments.
Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 18(2), 110–122.
Friesen, R. 1992. A comparison of NCAA Division I-A coaches and administrators’ attitudes toward
issues in intercollegiate athletics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas.
Fulks, D.L. (2002). Revenues and expenses of Division I and II Intercollegiate athletics programs:
Financial trends and relationships. Indianapolis, IN: National Collegiate Athletic Association.
Fuller, J.R., & Manning, E.A. (1987). Violence and sexism in college mascots and symbols: A
typology. Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology, 15(1), 61–64.
Gaston-Gayles, J.L. (2004). Examining academic and athletic motivation among student athletes at a
Division I university. Journal of College Student Development, 45(1), 75–83.
Gerdy, J. (2001). Facing up to the conflict between athletics and academics. Priorities, 16(Summer), 1–
15.
Gladden, J.M., Mahony, D.F., & Apostolopoulou, A. (2005). Toward a better understanding of college
athletic donors: What are the primary motives? Sport Marketing Quarterly, 14, 18–30.
Gladden, J.M., Milne, G.R., & Sutton, W.A. (1998). A conceptual framework for assessing brand
equity in Division I college athletics. Journal of Sport Management, 12, 1–19.
Goff, B. (2000). Effects of university athletics on the university: A review and extension of empirical
assessment. Journal of Sport Management, 14, 85–104.
Gohl, S.E. (2001). A lesson in English and gender: Title IX and the male student-athlete. Duke Law
Journal, 50(4), 1123–1164.
Goplerud, I.I.I., & Peter, C. (1997). Pay for play for college athletics: Now more than ever, 38 S. Texas
Law Review, XXX, 1081.
Gorney, B., & Ness, R.G. (2000). Evaluation Dimensions for Full-Time Head Coaches at NCAA
Division II Institutions. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 14(1), 47–65.
Government Accounting Office (GAO). (1996). Intercollegiate athletics: Status of efforts to promote
gender equity. A report to the Honorable Cardiss Collins, House of Representatives. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Document No. HEHS-97-10.
Government Accounting Office (GAO). 2000. Gender equity: Men’s and women’s participation in
higher education. Report number is GAO-01-128 (December 15); online www.gao.gov – go to
“GAO Reports” and then to “Find GAO Reports”
Government Accounting Office (GAO). 2001. Intercollegiate athletics: Four-year colleges’
experiences adding and discontinuing teams. Report number GAO-01-297 (March 8); online
www.gao.gov – go to “GAO Reports” and to “Find GAO Reports”
Green, T.S. 2000. The future of African American female athletes. In D. Brooks & R. Althouse (Eds.),
Racism in college athletics: The African American athlete’s experience (p. 227–242).
Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology, Inc.
Greendorfer, S.L., & Blinde, E.M. (1985). “Retirement” from intercollegiate sport: Theoretical and
empirical considerations. Sociology of Sport Journal, 2(2), 101–110.
Greenwell, T.C., Geist, A.L., Mahony, D.F., Jordan, J.S., & Pastore, D.L. (2001). Characteristics of
NCAA conference codes of ethics. International Journal of Sport Management, 2, 108–124.
Greenwell, T.C., Grube, A.J., Jordan, J.S., & Mahony, D.F. (2004). Student athletes’ perceptions of
conference codes of ethics. Journal of Contemporary Athletics, 1, 137–151.
Greenwell, T.C., Mahony, D.F., & Andrew, D.P. (2007). An examination of marketing resource
allocation in NCAA Division I athletics. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 16, 82–92.
Grimes, P.W., & Chressanthis, G.A. (1994). Alumni contributions to academics: The role of
intercollegiate sports and NCAA sanctions. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 53(1),
27–40.
Gumprecht, B. (2003). Stadium culture: College athletics and the making of place in the American
college town. Southeastern Geographer, 43(1), 28–53.
Hall, J.S., & Mahony, D.F. (1997). Factors affecting methods used by annual giving programs: A
qualitative study of NCAA Division I athletic departments. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 6(3), 21–
30.
Hanford, G. (1974). An inquiry into the need for and the feasibility of a national study of intercollegiate
athletics. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Hanford, G. (1979). Controversies in college sports. Annals of the American Academy of Political
Science, 445, 66–79.
Hansen, H., & Gauthier, R. (1992). Marketing objectives of professional and university sport
organizations. Journal of Sport Management, 6, 27–37.
Hardin, R., & McClung, S. (2002). Collegiate Sports Information: A Profile of the Profession. Public
Relations Quarterly, 47(2), 35–39.
Harris, O. 2000. African American predominance in sport. In R. Althouse & D. Brooks (Eds.), Racism
in college athletics: The African American athlete’s experience. Morgantown, WV: Fitness
Information Technology, Inc.
Harrison, C.K. (2002). Scholar or baller in American higher education? A visual elicitation and
qualitative assessment of the student-athlete mindset. NASAP Journal, 5(1), 66–81.
Harrison, C.K., & Lawrence, S.M. (2003). African american student athletes’ perceptions of career
transition in sport: A qualitative and visual elicitation. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 6(4), 373–
394.
Harrison, L. (2001). Understanding the influence of stereotypes: Implications for the African American
in sport and physical activity. Quest, 53(1), 97–114.
Harrison, L.A., Lee, M., & Belcher, D. (1999). Race and gender differences in sport participation as a
function of self-schema. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 23(3), 287–307.
Harrison, C.K., & Lawrence, S.M. 2004. College students’ perceptions, myths, and stereotypes about
African American athletes: A qualitative investigation. Sport, Education and Society, 9(1), 33-52.
Harrison, L., Harrison, C.K., & Moore, L.N. (2002). African American racial identity and sport. Sport
Education and Society, 2(October), 121–133.
Harrison, L., Jr. (1995). African Americans: Race as a self-schema affecting physical activity choices.
Quest, 47(1), 7–18.
Harrison, L., Azzarito, L., & Burden, J., Jr. (2004). Perceptions of athletic superiority: a view from the
other side. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 7(2), 149–166.
Harrison, T. 2004. Internal stakeholder perceptions of intercollegiate athletic reform: A focus group
examination. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University.
Hart, B.A., Hasbrook, C.A., & Mathes, S.A. (1986). An examination of the reduction in the number of
female interscholastic coaches. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 57, 68–77.
Hawkins, B. (2000). The New Plantation: The Internal Colonization of Black Student Athletes.
Winterville, GA: Sadiki Publishing.
Henderson, R.J. (1997). The 1963 Mississippi State University basketball controversy and the repeal of
the unwritten law: “Something more than the game will be lost. The Journal of Southern History,
63(4), 827–854.
Hill, L., & Kikulis, L. (1999). Contemplating restructuring: A case study of strategic decision making
in interuniversity athletic conferences. Journal of Sport Management, 13(1), 18–44.
Hill v. NCAA, 865 P.2d 633 (Cal. 1994) (upholding legality of NCAA student-athlete drug testing
program).
Hoeber, L. (2007). “It’s somewhere on the list but maybe it’s one of the bottom ones”: Examining
gender equity as an organization value in a sport organization. International Journal of Sport
Management and Marketing, 2(4), 362–378.
Hoeber, L. (2007). Exploring the gaps between meanings and practices of gender equity in a sport
organization. Gender, Work and Organization, 14(3), 259–280.
Hoeber, L., & Frisby, W. (2001). Gender equity for athletes: Rewriting the narrative for this
organizational value. European Sport Management Quarterly, 1(3), 179–209
Hoffman, J.L., Hoffman, H.L., and Kotila, A. (2008). Athletics gender equity in the state of
Washington: The 20th Anniversary of Blair v. Washington State University. Journal for the Study
of Sports & Athletes in Education, 3(1), 2008.
Hoffman, J.L. (2007). Women leading athletics: The AD search process. Women in Higher Education,
June, 27.
Holman, A.C. (2007). The Canadian hockey player problem: Cultural reckoning and national identities
in American collegiate sport, 1947–1980. The Canadian Historical Review, 88(3), 440–468.
Humphreys, B.R. (2000). Equal pay on the hardwood: The earnings gap between male and female
NCAA Division I basketball coaches. Journal of Sports Economics, 1(3), 299–307.
Hums, M.A., & Chelladurai, P. (1994). Distributive justice in intercollegiate athletics: Development of
an instrument. Journal of Sport Management, 8(3), 190–199.
Hums, M.A., & Chelladurai, P. (1994). Distributive justice in intercollegiate athletics: The views of
NCAA coaches and administrators. Journal of Sport Management, 8(3), 200–217.
Hums, M.A., MacLean, J., Pastore, D., & Richman, J. (1994). Influences on Canadian and American
women’s intercollegiate sport. ICHPER Journal, 31(1), 35–37.
Inglis, S.E., & Chelladurai, P. (1983). Student perceptions of goals of intercollegiate athletics: The case
of a Canadian university. Proceedings of the FISU Conference—Universidade ’83. (pp. 778–787).
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Inglis, S.E., & Chelladurai, P. (1987). Student involvement in decision making in university
intercollegiate and intramural program. Canadian Journal of Sport Sciences, 12(2), 91–96.
Jones, G., Leonard II, W., Schmitt, R., Smith, D.R., & Tolone, W. (1987). A log-linear analysis of
stacking in college football. Social Science Quarterly, 68, 70–83.
Jordan, J.S., Greenwell, T.C., Geist, A.L., Pastore, D.L., & Mahony, D.F. (2004). A study examining
the perceptions of coaches towards their conference code of ethics. The Physical Educator, 61,
131–145.
Jordan, J., Turner, B., & Sagas, M. (2006). Factors affecting response rates in survey research: The case
of intercollegiate coaches. Applied Research in Coaching and Athletics Annual, 21, 211–237.
Jordan, J.S., Turner, B.A., Fink, J.S., & Pastore, D.L. (in press).Organizational justice as a predictor of
job satisfaction: An examination of head basketball coaches. Journal for the Study of Sports and
Athletes in Education.
Kaburakis, A. (2006). U.S. Athletic Associations’ rules challenges by international prospective studentathletes—NCAA DI Amateurism. International Sport Law Journal, 1-2, 74–83.
Kaburakis, A. (2007). International Prospective Student-Athletes and NCAA DI Amateurism.
International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, 2(1–2), 100–118.
Kaburakis, A., & Solomon, J. (2005). Mind the gap—NCAA DI handling of international prospects and
student-athletes—the professionalization threshold—regulatory framework analysis—conveyance
of amateurism policy. International Sport Law Journal, 1-2, 37–51.
Kane, M.J., & Buysse, J.M. (2005). Intercollegiate Media Guide Covers as Contested Terrain: A
Longitudinal Analysis. Sociology of Sport Journal, 22, 214–238.
Kent, A., & Chelladurai, P. (2001). Cascading effects of transformational leadership on organizational
commitment and citizenship behavior: A case study in intercollegiate athletics. Journal of Sport
Management, 15, 135–159.
Kent, R.A.W., & Turner, B.A. (2002). Increasing response rates among coaches: The role of
prenotification methods. Journal of Sport Management, 16, 209–217.
Kihl, L.A. (2006). What’s morality got to do with it: An examination of compliance officers’
approaches to rule interpretations. Journal of College & Character (Special Issue: Sport ethics),
7(3), 1–8.
Kihl, L.A. (2007). Moral codes, moral tensions, and hiding behind the rules: A snap shot of athletic
administrators’ practical morality. Sport Management Review, 10(3), 279–305.
Kihl, L.A., Richardson, T., & Campisi, C. (2008). Toward a grounded theory of student-athlete
suffering and dealing with academic corruption. Journal of Sport Management, 22(3), 273-302.
Kim, S., Andrew, D.P.S., Mahony, D.F., & Hums, M.A. (in press).Distributive justice in intercollegiate
athletics: Perceptions of student athletes. International Journal of Sport Management.
Kim, J.C., & Cunningham, G.B. (2005). Moderating effects of organizational support on the
relationship between work experiences and job satisfaction among university coaches.
International Journal of Sport Psychology, 36, 50–64.
Kim, J.C., & Cunningham, G.B. (2007). Understanding the role of organizational support for coaches.
International Journal of Sport Management, 8, 170–179.
King, C.R., & Springwood, C.F. 2001. Beyond the cheers: Race as a spectacle in college sport.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Kleiber, D.A., Greendorfer, S., Blinde, E., & Samdahl, S. (1987). Quality of exit from university sports
and life satisfaction in early adulthood. Sociology of Sport Journal, 4(1), 28–36.
Knapp v. Northwestern University, 101 F.3d 473 (7th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1274 (1997)
(federal disability discrimination laws do not prohibit university’s medical disqualification of
student-athlete based on team physician’s reasonable medical opinion).
Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics. (1991). Keeping faith with the student-athlete: A new
model for intercollegiate athletics. Charlotte, N.C.
Knight Foundation. (1992). A solid start: A report on reform of intercollegiate athletics. Report of the
Knight Foundation Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics. Miami, FL: Knight Foundation.
Knight Foundation. (1993). A new beginning for a new century: Intercollegiate athletics in the United
States. Report of the Knight Foundation Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics. Miami, FL:
Knight Foundation.
Knight Foundation. 2001. A call to action: Reconnecting college sports and higher education. Report
of the Knight Foundation Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics. Miami, FL: Knight Foundation
http://www.knightfdn.org/
Ko, Y.J., Durrant, S., & Mangiantini, J. (in press).Assessment of services provided to NCAA Division I
athletes: Development of a model and instrument. Sport Management Review.
Koo, G., & Hardin, R. (2008). Difference in interrelationship between spectators’ motives and
behavioral intentions based upon emotional attachment. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 17(1), 30–43.
Kotlyarenko, D., & Ehrenberg, R.G. (2000). Ivy league athletic performance: Do brains win? Journal
of Sports Economics, 1(2), 139–150.
Kuga, D.A. (1996). Governance of intercollegiate athletics: Perceptions of faculty members. Journal of
Sport Management, 10, 149–168.
Lapchick, R. (2002). Keeping score when it counts: Graduation rates for 2002–03 bowl-bound college
football teams. Report by The Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport at the DeVos Sport
Business Management Graduate Program, University of Central Florida.
Lapchick, R. (2005). 2004 racial and gender report card. Orlando, FL: The Institute for Diversity and
Ethics in Sports at the DeVos Sport Business Management Graduate Program, University of
Central Florida.
Lapchick, R. (2005). Keeping score when it counts: Assessing the graduation rates of the 2004–05
bowl-bound college football teams. Orlando, FL: The Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport at
the DeVos Sport Business Management Graduate Program, University of Central Florida.
Lapchick, R. (2005). Keeping score when it counts: Graduation rates for 2005 NCAA men’s and
women’s Division i basketball tournament teams. Orlando, FL: The Institute for Diversity and
Ethics in Sport at the DeVos Sport Business Management Graduate Program, University of
Central Florida.
LaVoi, N., Buysse, J., Maxwell, H., & Kane, M.J. (2007). The influence of occupational status and sex
of decision maker on media representations in intercollegiate sports. Women in Sport and Physical
Activity Journal, 14(4), 31–43.
Lawrence, J.H., Hendricks, L.A., & Ott, M.C. (2007). Faculty perceptions of intercollegiate athletics:
A national study of faculty at NCAA Division I football bowl subdivision institutions. A report
prepared for the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics. Ann Arbor, MI: The University
of Michigan, Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education.
Lenskyj, H. 1992. Unsafe at home base: Women’s experiences of sexual harassment in university sport
and physical education. Women in Sport & Physical Activity Journal,1 (1), 19–33.
Leonard, W.M., II. (1987). Stacking in college basketball: A neglected analysis. Sociology of Sport
Journal, 4(4), 403–409.
Lindquist, D.C. (2006). “Locating” the nation: Football game day and American dreams in central
Ohio. Journal of American Folklore, 119(474), 444–488.
Li, M. (2000). Regulation of elite sport in the United States. International Sports Journal, 4(Summer),
26–43.
Li, M., La Point, J., & Mawson, M. (1998). An empirical examination of organizational effectiveness in
the athletic departments of NCAA Division I-A and Division I-AA institutions. International
Sports Journal,1998 (Winter), 31–48.
Little, M.H. (2002). The extra-curricular activities of Black college students, 1868–1940. The Journal
of African American History, 87, (Winter), 43–55.
Long, J.E., & Caudill, S.B. (1991). the impact of participation in intercollegiate athletics on income and
graduation. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 73, 525–31.
Lovaglia, M., & Lucas, J. 2005. High-visibility athletic programs and the prestige of public
universities. The Sport Journal, 8, 1. Retrieved March 15, 2007 from
http://www.thesportjournal.org/2005Journal/Vol8-No1/michael_lovaglia.asp
Lucas, J., & Smith, R. (1978). The Saga of American Sport. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger.
MacLean, J.C., & Chelladurai, P. (1995). Dimensions of coaching performance: Development of a
scale. Journal of Sport Management, 9(2), 194–207.
Mahony, D.F. (1999). Collective reaction to injustice in intercollegiate sport: Injustice to women and
student athletes as test cases. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 23, 328–352.
Mahony, D.F., Fink, J., & Pastore, D. (1999). Ethics in intercollegiate athletics: An examination of
NCAA violations and penalties—1952–1997. Professional Ethics (Gainesville, Fla.), 7(2), 53–74.
Mahony, D.F., Gladden, J.M., & Funk, D.C. (2003). Examining athletic donors at NCAA division I
institutions. International Sports Journal, 7(1), 9–27.
Mahony, D.F., Hums, M.A., & Riemer, H.A. (2002). Distributive justice in intercollegiate athletics:
Perceptions of athletic directors and athletic board chairs. Journal of Sport Management, 16, 331–
357.
Mahony, D.F., Hums, M.A., & Riemer, H.A. (2005). Bases for determining need: Perspectives of
intercollegiate athletic directors and athletic board chairs. Journal of Sport Management, 19, 170–
192.
Mahony, D.F., & Pastore, D. (1998). Distributive justice: An examination of participation
opportunities, revenues, and expenses at NCAA institutions—1973–1993. Journal of Sport and
Social Issues, 22, 127–148.
Mahony, D.F., Riemer, H.A., Breeding, J.L., & Hums, M.A. (2006). Organizational justice in sport
organizations: Perceptions of student-athletes and other college students. Journal of Sport
Management, 20, 159–188.
Maloney, M.T., & McCormick, R.E. (1993). An examination of the role that intercollegiate athletic
participation plays in academic achievement: Athletes’ feats in the classroom. The Journal of
Human Resources, 28(3), 555–570.
Mangold, W.D., Bean, L., & Adams, D. (2003). the impact of intercollegiate athletics on graduation
rates among major NCAA Division I universities: Implications for college persistence theory and
practice. The Journal of Higher Education, 74(5), 540–562.
Marrs, J. M. (1996). The right of publicity: Untested marketing rights of college football celebrities.
Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 20(2), 211–222.
Marsh, G., & Robbins, M. (2003). Weighing the interests of the institution, the membership and
institutional representatives in an NCAA investigation, 55. Florida Law Review, XXX, 667.
Martin, C.H. (1996). The tail that wags the dog: Football and the American university. Reviews in
American History, 24(4), 629–634.
Mathewson, A.D. (1990). Intercollegiate athletics and the assignment of legal rights, 35. Saint Louis
University Law Journal, XXX, 39.
Mazzeo, M.B., Cuneen, J., & Claussen, C.L. (1997). Retail licensing procedures used by selected
NCAA Division I institutions: Implications for licensees of collegiate memorabilia. Sport
Marketing Quarterly, 6(1), 41–46.
McCormick, R.E., & Tinsley, M. (1987). Athletics versus academics? Evidence from SAT scores. The
Journal of Political Economy, 95, 1103–1116.
McDowell, J., & Cunningham, G.B. (2007). The prevalence of occupational segregation in athletic
administrative positions. International Journal of Sport Management, 8, 245–262.
McDowell, J., & Cunningham, G.B. (in press).Reactions to physical contact among coaches and
players: The influence of coach sex, player sex, and attitudes toward women. Sex Roles.
McGuire, R., & Trail, G.T. (2002). Satisfaction and importance of athletic department goals: The views
of university presidents. International Journal of Sport Management, 3, 53–73.
McTeer, W. (1987). Intercollegiate athletes and student life: Two studies in the Canadian case. ARENA
Review, 11(2), 94–100.
Mignano, A.C., Brewer, B.W., Winter, C.R., & Van Raalte, J.L. (2006). Athletic identity and student
involvement of female athletes at NCAA Division III women’s and coeducational colleges.
Journal of College Student Development, 47(4), 457–464.
Meggyesy, D. (2000). Athletes in big-time college sport. Society, 37(3), 24–28.
Meyer, B.B. (1990). From idealism to actualization: The academic performance of female collegiate
athletes. Sociology of Sport Journal, 7(1), 44–57.
Miller, P.S., & Kerr, G. (2003). The role experimentation of intercollegiate student athletes. The Sport
Psychologist, 17(2), 197-220.
Miracle, A.W., & Roger Rees, C. (1994). Lessons of the locker room: The myth of school sports.
Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books.
Mitten, M.J. (1995). University price competition for elite students and athletes: Illusions and realities,
36 S. Texas Law Review, XXX, 59.
Mitten, M.J. 1998. enhanced risk of harm to one’s self as a justification for exclusion from athletics, 8.
Marquette Sports Law Journal, 189.
Moore, P. 1989. Students as athletes: Making it work. Educational Record, 70(3–4), 44–47.
Moorman, A.M., & Hums, M.A. (1999). Student athlete liability for NCAA violations and breach of
contract. Journal of Legal Aspects of Sport, 9(3), 163–174.
Murphy, Geraldine. M., Petipas, A.J., & Brewer, B.W. (1996). Identity foreclosure, athletic identity,
and career maturity in intercollegiate athletics. The Sport Psychologist, 10(3), 239–246.
Murrell, A.J., & Gaertner, S.L. (1992). Cohesion and sport team effectiveness: The benefit of a
common group identity. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 16(3), 1–14.
Nathan, D.A. (2002). Of grades and glory: Rethinking intercollegiate athletics. American Quarterly,
54(1), 139–147.
National Athletic Trainers Association. (2007). NCAA special issue. Journal of Athletic Training,
42(2), 173–319 (NCAA Injury Surveillance).
NCAA Presidential Task Force on the Future of Division I Intercollegiate Athletics. (2006). The
second-century imperatives: presidential leadership—institutional accountability.
http://www2.ncaa.org/portal/legislation_and_governance/committees/future_task_force/final_repo
rt.pdf
NCAA Research Report 96-02. (1996). Characteristics of student-athlete data in the 1994-95 NCAA
Initial-Eligibility Clearinghouse. Overland Park, KS: National Collegiate Athletic Association.
NCAA Research Report 96-04. (1996). Characteristics of NCAA Division I recruits including ethnic
and income-level groups from the 1994-95 initial-eligibility clearinghouse. Overland Park, KS:
National Collegiate Athletic Association.
NCAA Research Report 97-04. (1997). Characteristics of NCAA Division I recruits, including ethnic
and income-level groups from the 1995-96 NCAA initial-eligibility clearinghouse. Overland Park,
KS: National Collegiate Athletic Association.
NCAA Research Report 99-02. (2001). Academic characteristics of the 1997 and 1998 prospective
student-athlete cohorts in the NCAA initial-eligibility clearinghouse. Indianapolis: National
Collegiate Athletic Association.
NCAA Research Report 99-03. (2001). Academic characteristics of Division I recruits by sport group
in the 1997 and 1998 NCAA initial-eligibility clearinghouse. Indianapolis: National Collegiate
Athletic Association.
NCAA Research Report 99-04. (2001). Academic characteristics of Division I recruits by ethnic group
in the 1997 and 1998 NCAA initial-eligibility clearinghouse. Indianapolis: National Collegiate
Athletic Association.
NCAA Research Report 99-05. (2001). Academic Characteristics by Income Group of Division I
Recruits in the 1997 and 1998 NCAA Initial-Eligibility Clearinghouse. Indianapolis, Indiana
National Collegiate Athletic Association.
NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, 468 U.S. 85 (1984) (NCAA is subject to
the federal antitrust laws; invalidating NCAA college football television plan because it
unreasonably restrains trade).
NCAA v. Miller, 10 F.3d 633 (9th Cir. 1993) (Dormant Commerce Clause of U.S. Constitution
prevents state regulation of NCAA other than by recognition and enforcement of contracts).
NCAA v. Smith, 525 U.S. 459 (1999) (NCAA not subject to Title IX because association does not
directly or indirectly receive federal funds).
NCAA v. Tarkanian, 488 U.S. 179 (1988) (NCAA is not a “state actor” whose regulatory authority is
subject to the constraints of the U.S. Constitution).
Nixon, H.L., II. (1994). Coaches’ views of risk, pain, and injury in sport, with special reference to
gender differences. Sociology of Sport Journal, 11(1), 79–87.
Nixon, H.L., II. (1994). Social pressure, social support, and help seeking for pain and injuries in college
sports networks. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 18(4), 340–355.
Nixon, H. L., II. (1996). Explaining pain and injury attitudes and experiences in sport in terms of
gender, race, and sports status factors. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 20(1), 33–44.
Nixon, H.L., II. (1996). The relationship of friendship networks, sports experiences, and gender to
expressed pain thresholds. Sociology of Sport Journal, 13(1), 78–86.
Noble, J. (2004). Faculty attitudes toward NCAA Division III athletic programs. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation: University of Northern Colorado.
Noll, R. (1999). The business of college sports and the high cost of winning. Milken Institute Review
(third quarter): 24-37.
Norman, G. 1995. Faculty attitudes toward intercollegiate athletics at colleges and universities
belonging to Division I of the National Collegiate Athletic Association and the National
Association of Intercollegiate Athletics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North
Texas.
Oblinger, D.G., & Verville, A. (1998). What business wants from higher education. Phoenix, AZ:
Oryx.
Oglesby, C. 1993. Issues of sport and racism: Where is the White in the Rainbow Coalition? In D.D.
Brooks and R.C. Althouse (Eds.), Racism in college athletics: The African-American athlete’s
experience (pp. 251–68). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Oglesby, C. & Schrader, D. (2000). Where is the White in the Rainbow Coalition? In D. Brooks & R.
Althouse (Eds.), Racism in college athletics: The African-American athlete’s experience (pp. 279–
93). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
O’Rourke, S.M., & Chelladurai, P. (2006). Effectiveness of the National Collegiate Athletic
Association: Perceptions of intercollegiate athletic administrators. International Journal of Sport
Management, 7, 82–101.
Padilla, A., & Baumer, D. (1994). Big-time college sports: Management and economic issues. Journal
of Sport and Social Issues, 18(2), 123–143.
Pan, D.W., & Baker, J.A.W. (1998). Perceptual mapping of banned substances in athletics: Gender and
sport defined differences. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 22(2), 166–178.
Pan, D.W., & Baker, J.A.W. (1999). Perceptions of university sports relative to selected attributes as
determined by product differentiation strategy. Journal of Sport Behavior, 22(1), 69–82.
Pan, D.W., & Baker, J.A.W. (2005). Factors, differential market effects, and marketing strategies for
the sale of season tickets for intercollegiate football games. Journal of Sport Behavior, 28(4), 351–
377.
Pan, D.W., Gabert, T.E., Baker, J.A.W., Hofford, C.W., & Hale, J. (2002). Mapping of controlled
substances relative to their attributes as perceived by college students in the U.S.A. Journal of
ICHPER-SD, 38(2), 45–50.
Pan, D.W., Gabert, T.E., McGaugh, E., & Branvold, S.E. (1997). Factors and differential demographic
effects on purchases of season tickets for intercollegiate basketball games. Journal of Sport
Behavior, 20(4), 125–142.
Parks, J.B., Russell, R.L., & Wood, P.H. (1993). Marital and other primary dyadic relationships of
intercollegiate athletics administrators. Journal of Sport Management, 7, 151–158.
Parks, J.B., Russell, R.L., Wood, P.H., Roberton, M.A., & Shewokis, P.A. (1995). The paradox of the
contented working woman in intercollegiate athletics administration. Research Quarterly for
Exercise and Sport, 66, 73–79.
Pascarella, E.T., Bohr, L., Nora, A., & Terenzini, P.T. (1995). intercollegiate athletic participation and
freshman-year cognitive outcomes. The Journal of Higher Education, 66(4), 369–387.
Pascarella, E.T., & Smart, J.C. (1991). Impact of intercollegiate athletic participation for African
American and Caucasian men: Some further evidence. Journal of College Student Development,
32(2), 123–130.
Patrick, I.S.C., Mahony, D.F., & Petrosko, J.M. (in press). Distributive justice in intercollegiate
athletics: Perceptions of equality, revenue production, and need. Journal of Sport Management.
Pelak, C.F. (2002). Women’s collective identity formation in sports: A case study from women’s ice
hockey. Gender & Society, 16(1), 93–114.
Pent, A., Grappendorf, H., & Henderson, A. (2007). Do they want more? An analysis of NCAA senior
woman administrators participation in financial decision making. Journal for the Study of Sports
and Athletes in Education, 1, 157–174.
Perlmutter, D.D. 2003. Black athletes and White professors: A twilight zone of uncertainty. The
Chronicle of Higher Education 50, 7 (October 10):
http://chronicle.com/weekly/v50/i07/07b00701.htm
Person, D.R., Benson-Quaziena, M., & Rogers, A. (2001). Female student athletes and student athletes
of color. New Directions for Student Services, 2001(93), 55–64.
Person, D.R., & LeNoir, K.M. (1997). Retention issues and models for African American male athletes.
New Directions for Student Services, 1997 (80), 79–91.
Phillip, M-C. (1993). An uneven playing field. Black Issues in Higher Education, 10(20), 24–29.
Potuto, J.R. (2007). Academic misconduct, athletics academic support services, and the NCAA, 95.
Kentucky Law Journal (Lexington, Ky.), XXX, 447.
Promis, D., Erevelles, N., & Matthews, J. (2001). Reconceptualizing inclusion: The politics of
university sports and recreation programs for students with mobility impairments. Sociology of
Sport Journal, 18(1), 37–50.
Putler, D.S., & Wolfe, R.A. (1999). Perceptions of intercollegiate athletic programs: Priorities and
tradeoffs. Sociology of Sport Journal, 16(4), 301–325.
Rascher, D.A., & Schwarz, A.D. (2000). Neither reasonable nor necessary: “Amateurism” in big-time
college sports. Antitrust, 14, 51–56.
Rhoads, T., & Gerking, S. (2000). Educational contributions, academic quality, and athletic success.
Contemporary Economic Policy, 18(2), 248–258.
Riemer, H.A., & Chelladurai, P. (1998). Development of the Athlete Satisfaction Questionnaire (ASQ).
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 20, 127–156.
Riemer, H.A., & Chelladurai, P. (2001). Satisfaction and commitment of Canadian athletes. Avante,
7(2), 27–50.
Rishe, P.J. (2003). Reexamination of how athletic success impacts graduation rates: Comparing student
athletes to all other undergraduates. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 62, 407–427.
Roach, K., & Dixon, M.A. (2006). Hiring internal employees: A view from the field. Journal of Sport
Management, 20, 137–158.
Roberts, G. (1996). The NCAA, antitrust, and consumer welfare, 70. Tulane Law Review, XXX, 2631.
Roberts, G. (2003). Evaluating gender equity within the framework of intercollegiate athletics’
conflicting value systems, 77. Tulane Law Review, XXX, 997.
Robinson, M.J., Tedrick, R., & Carpenter, J.R. (2001). Satisfaction of NCAA Division III athletic
directors: A descriptive analysis and an examination of gender differences. International Sports
Journal, Summer, 25–32.
Rodriguez, R. (1993). Dispelling the myths of Latinos in sports. Black Issues in Higher Education,
10(20), 30–31.
Ross v. Creighton University, 957 F.2d 410 (7th Cir. 1992) (legal relationship between university and
student-athlete is primarily contractual in nature).
Rudd, A. (in press).A qualitative study on the moral reasoning of Division IA college athletes. Journal
of Coaching Education.
Rudd, A., & Mondello, M.J. (2006). How do college coaches define character? A qualitative study with
Division IA head coaches. Journal of College & Character, 7(3), 1–10.
Rudd, A., & Stoll, S.K. (2004). What type of character do athletes possess? An empirical examination
of college athletes versus college non-athletes with the RSBH Value Judgment Inventory. The
Sport Journal, 7(2) http://www.thesportjournal.org/2004Journal/Vol7-No2/RuddStoll.asp.
Ryan, F.J. (1989). Participation in intercollegiate athletics: Affective outcomes. Journal of College
Student Development, 30(2), 122–128.
Sabo, D. (1998). Women’s athletics and the elimination of men’s sports programs. Journal of Sport and
Social Issues, 22, 27–31.
Sack, A. (1987). College sport and the student-athlete. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 11(1–2), 31–
48.
Sack, A.S. (1988). Are “Improper benefits” really improper? A study of college athlete’s views
concerning amateurism. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 12(1), 1–16.
Sack, A.L., & Staurowsky, E.J. (1998). College athletes for hire: The evolution and legacy of the
NCAA’s amateur myth. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Sack, A., & Thiel, R. (1979). College football and social mobility: A case study of Notre Dame football
players. Sociology of Education, 52(1), 60–66.
Safai, P. (2003). Healing the body in the “culture of risk”: Examining the negotiation of treatment
between sport medicine clinicians and injured athletes in Canadian intercollegiate sport. Sociology
of Sport Journal, 20(2), 127–146.
Sagas, M., & Ashley, F.B. (2001). Gender differences in the intent to leave coaching: The role of
personal, external, and work-related variables. International Journal of Sport Management, 2,
297–314.
Sagas, M., & Batista, P.J. (2001). The importance of Title IX compliance on the job satisfaction and
occupational turnover intent of intercollegiate coaches. Applied Research in Coaching and
Athletics Annual, 16, 15–43.
Sagas, M., & Cunningham, G.B. (2004). The impact of relational gender in head coach–assistant coach
dyads. Applied Research in Coaching and Athletics Annual, 19, 109–136.
Sagas, M., & Cunningham, G.B. (2004). The impact of supervisor support on career outcomes of the
senior woman administrator. International Journal of Sport Management, 5, 229–242.
Sagas, M., & Cunningham, G.B. 2004. Treatment discrimination in college coaching: Its prevalence
and impact on the career success of assistant basketball coaches. International Sports Journal.
8(1), 76–88.
Sagas, M., & Cunningham, G.B. (2004). Does having the “right stuff” matter? Gender differences in
the determinants of career success among intercollegiate athletic administrators. Sex Roles, 50,
411–421.
Sagas, M., & Cunningham, G.B. (2005). Racial differences in the career success of assistant football
coaches: The role of discrimination, human capital, and social capital. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 35, 773–797.
Sagas, M., & Cunningham, G.B. (2005). Work and family conflict among college assistant coaches.
International Journal of Sport Management, 6, 183–197.
Sagas, M., Paetzold, R., & Ashley, F.B. (2005). Relational demography in coaching dyads. Physical
Educator, 62, 103–112.
Sagas, M., Cunningham, G.B., & Ashley, F.B. (2000). Examining the women’s coaching deficit
through the perspective of assistant coaches. International Journal of Sport Management, 1, 267–
282.
Sagas, M., Cunningham, G.B., & Pastore, D.L. (2006). Predicting head coaching intentions of male and
female assistant coaches: An application of the Theory of Planned Behavior. Sex Roles, 54, 695–
705.
Sagas, M., Cunningham, G.B., Wigley, B.J., & Ashley, F.B. (2000). Internet coverage of university
softball and baseball Web sites: The inequity continues. Sociology of Sport Journal, 17, 196–203.
Sagas, M., Cunningham, G.B., & Fink, J.S. (2004). Downfalls of embeddedness: Examining the effects
of job embeddedness on head coaching intentions of women assistant coaches. Journal of
Contemporary Athletics, 1, 353–362.
Sagas, M., Cunningham, G.B., & Teed, K. (2006). Examining homologous reproduction in the
representation of assistant coaches of women’s teams. Sex Roles, 55, 503–510.
Sagas, M., Paetzold, R., & Cunningham, G.B. (2006). Effects of supervisor-subordinate demographic
diversity on the job satisfaction experienced by assistant coaches. International Journal of Sport
Management, 7, 141–159.
Sagas, M., Wigley, B.J., Cunningham, G.B., & Ashley, F.A. (2000). Completing the evolution:
Revenue sharing through the Sears Director’s Cup as a catalyst to achieve substantial
proportionality. Sociology of Sport On-line, 3 (1). Available:
http://psyched.otago.ac.nz.sosol/v3i1/v3i1s1.html
Sailes, G. 2000. The African American athlete: Social myths and stereotypes. In R. Althouse & D.
Brooks (Eds.), Racism in college athletics: The African American athlete’s experience (pp. 53-64).
Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Salzwedel, M.R., & Ericson, J. (2004). Cleaning Up Buckley: How the Family Educational Rights and
Privacy Act Shields Academic Corruption in College Athletics. Wisconsin Law Review, 2003(6),
1053–1113.
Sandel, M. (2007). The case against perfection: Ethics in the age of genetic engineering. Cambridge,
MA: Belknap Press at Harvard Press.
Sartore, M.L., & Cunningham, G.B. (2006). Stereotypes, race, and coaching. Journal of African
American Studies, 10(2), 69–83.
Sartore, M.L., & Cunningham, G.B. (2007). Homosexual coaches and their teams: Liking differences
based on sex and sport participation. Psychological Reports, 101, 270–272.
Sartore, M.L., & Cunningham, G.B. (2007). Ideological gender beliefs, identity control, and selflimiting behavior within sport organizations. Quest, 59, 244–265.
Sartore, M., & Sagas, M. (2007). A trend analysis of the proportion of positions. International Journal
of Sport Management, 8, 226–244.
Savage, H.J. (Ed.). (1929). American college athletics (Bulletin No. 23). New York: Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Schneider, R.G. (2000) Payment of college athletes: Student-athlete’s and administrator’s perceptions.
International Sports Journal, Summer, 4–55.
Seidler, T.L., Gerdy, J.R. & Cardinal, B.J. (1998). Athletic director authority in Division I
intercollegiate athletics: Perceptions on athletic directors and university presidents. International
Sports Journal, Summer, 37–46.
Seifried, C.S. (2007). A content analysis of Division I men’s basketball recruiting strategies: Separating
high-majors from mid-majors. International Journal of Sport Management, 8(3), 324-346.
Sellers, R.M. 1993. Black student-athletes: Reaping the benefits of recovering from the exploitation. In
D.D. Brooks and R.C. Althouse (Eds.), Racism in college athletics: The African American
athlete’s experience (pp. 143–76). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Sellers, R.M., Chavous, T.M., & Brown, T.N. (2002). Uneven playing field: The impact of structural
barriers on the initial eligibility of African American student-athletes. In M. Gatz, M.A. Messner,
& S.J. Ball-Rokeach (Eds.), Paradoxes of youth and sport (pp. 173–186). Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Shaw, P. (1995). Achieving Title IX gender equity in college athletics in an era of austerity. Journal of
Sport and Social Issues, 19(1), 6–27.
Sheehan, R.G. (1996). Keeping score: The economics of big-time sports. South Bend, IN: Diamond
Communications.
Shropshire, K.L. (1997). Colorblind propositions: Race, the SAT and the NCAA. Stanford Law and
Policy Review, 8(1), 141-152.
Shropshire, K., & Davis, T. (2003). The business of sport agents. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania.
Shulman, J.L., & Bowen, W.G. (2001). The game of life: College sports and educational values.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Siegel, D. (1994). Higher education and the plight of the black male athlete. Journal of Sport and
Social Issues, 18(3), 207–223.
Simon, R.L. (1993-94). “Gender Equity and Inequity in Athletics,” Journal of the Philosophy of Sport,
XX–X1, 6–22.
Singer, J.N. (2005). Understanding racism through the eyes of African American male student-athletes.
Race, Ethnicity and Education, 8(4), 365–386.
Smith, E. (1993). Race, sport, and the American university. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 17(3),
206–212.
Smith, E. (1995). Hope via basketball: The ticket out of the ghetto. Journal of Sport and Social Issues,
19(3), 312–317.
Smith, E. 2000. Stacking in the team sport of intercollegiate baseball. In D. Brooks & R. Althouse
(Eds.), Racism in college athletics: The African American athlete’s experience (pp. 65–84).
Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Smith, R.K. (1990). An academic game plan for reforming big-time intercollegiate athletics. Denver
University Law Review, 67, 213.
Smith, R.K. (1996). When ignorance is not bliss: In search of racial and gender equity in intercollegiate
athletics. Missouri Law Review, 61, 329.
Smith v. NCAA, 139 F.3d 180 (3d Cir. 1998) (NCAA student-athlete eligibility rules and enforcement
process are non-commercial regulation not subject to federal antitrust laws).
Smith, Y. 2000. Sociohistorical influences on African American elite sportswomen. In D. Brooks & R.
Althouse (Eds.), Racism in college athletics: The African American athlete’s experience (pp. 173–
198). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Snyder, E.E., & Baber, L. (1979). A profile of former collegiate athletes and nonathletes: Leisure
activities, attitudes toward work, and aspects of satisfaction with life. Journal of Sport Behavior,
2(4), 211–219.
Snyder, E. E. (1994). Interpretations and explanations of deviance among college athletes: A case
study. Sociology of Sport Journal, 11(3), 231–248.
Solow, R. 1998. Faculty athletic committees as a source of intercollegiate athletic authority.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Georgia.
Sosa, J., & Sagas, M. (2006). Organizational culture: The effect on academic success. Applied
Research in Coaching and Athletics Annual, 21, 130–154.
Sowa, C.J., & Gressard, C.F. (1983). Athletic participation: Its relationship to student development.
Journal of College Student Personnel, 24(3), 236–239.
Sperber, M. (1990). College Sports, Inc.: The athletic department vs the university. New York: Henry
Holt and Company.
Sperber, M. (2000). Beer and circus: How big-time college sports is crippling undergraduate
education. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Splitt, F. 2004. Reclaiming academic primacy in higher education: A brief. Retrieved September 6,
2006 from http://www.westga.edu/~drake/home.html
Staurowsky, E.J. (1995). Examining the roots of a gendered division of labor in intercollegiate
athletics: Insights into the gender equity debate. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 19(1), 28–44.
Staurowsky, E.J. (1996). Blaming the victim: Resistance in the battle over gender equity in
intercollegiate athletics. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 20(2), 194–210.
Staurowsky, E.J. (1999). American Indian imagery and the miseducation of America. Quest, 51(4),
382–392.
Stevenson, C. (1976). Institutional socialization and college sport. Research Quarterly, 47(1), 1–8.
Stinson, J.L., & Howard, D.R. (2007). Athletic success and private giving to athletic and academic
programs at NCAA institutions. Journal of Sport Management, 21(2), 235–264.
Stinson, J.L., & Howard, D.R. (in press).Winning does matter: Patterns in private giving to athletic and
academic programs at NCAA Division I-AA and I-AAA institutions. Sport Management Review.
Stinson, J.L., & Howard, D.L. (2004). Scoreboards and mortarboards: Major donor behavior and
intercollegiate athletics. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 13(3), 129–140.
Stone, J., Lynch, C.I., Sjomeling, M., & Darley, J.M. (1999). Stereotype threat effects on black and
white athletic performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1213–1227.
Stone, J., Perry, Z.W., & Darley, J.M. (1997). “White men can’t jump”: Evidence for the perceptual
confirmation of racial stereotypes following a basketball game. Basic and Applied Social
Psychology, 19(3), 291–306.
Stratta, T. 1995. Cultural inclusiveness in sport—recommendations from African American women
college athletes. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 66(7), 52–56.
Stratta, T. (1998). Barriers facing African American women in college sports: A case study approach.
Melpomene, 17(1), 19–26.
Strong, P.T. (2004). The mascot slot: Cultural citizenship, political correctness, and Pseudo-Indian
sports symbols. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 28(1), 79–87.
Stumph, K.J., & Sagas, M. (2005). Gender disparities in career outcomes of assistant coaches:
Discrimination or capital deficiencies. Applied Research in Coaching and Athletics Annual, 20,
94–118.
Suggs, W. (2005). A place on the team: The triumph and tragedy of Title IX. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Suits, B. (1978/2005). The grasshopper: Game, life and utopia. With an introduction by Thomas
Hurka. Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview.
Taub, D.E., Blinde, E., & Greer, K.R. (1999). Stigma management through participation in sport and
physical activity: Experiences of male college students with physical disabilities. Human
Relations, 52(11), 146–149.
Thelin, J. (1994). Games colleges play: Scandal and reform in intercollegiate athletics. Baltimore, MD:
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Thelin, J.R. (2000). Good sports? Historical perspective on the political economy of intercollegiate
athletics in the era of Title IX, 1972-1997. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(4), 391–410.
Thelin, J.R. (2002). Academics on Athletics. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(3), 409–419.
Thrasher, R.G., Andrew, D.P.S., & Mahony, D.F. (2006). The impact of gender and athletic
participation on gambling attitudes and subjective norms of college students. Journal of
Contemporary Athletics, 2(3), 291–311.
Toma, J.D. (1999). The collegiate ideal and the tools of external relations: The uses of high-profile
intercollegiate athletics. In J. D. Toma and A. J. Kezar, eds., reconceptualizing the Collegiate
Ideal, New Directions for Higher Education, No. 105 (pp. 81-90). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Toma, J.D. 2003. Football U: Spectator sports in the life of the American university. Ann Arbor, MI:
The University of Michigan Press.
Toma, J.D., & Cross, M.E. (1998). Intercollegiate athletics and student college choice: Exploring the
impact of championship seasons on undergraduate applications. Research in Higher Education,
39, 633–661.
Trail, G., & Chelladurai, P. (2000). Perceptions of goals and processes of intercollegiate athletics: A
case study. Journal of Sport Management, 14, 154–178.
Trail, G.T., & Chelladurai, P. (2002). Perceptions of intercollegiate athletic goals and processes: The
influence of personal values. Journal of Sport Management, 16, 289–310.
Tucker, L.W., & Parks, J.B. (2001). Effects of gender and sport types on intercollegiate athletes’
perceptions of the legitimacy of aggressive behaviors in sport. Sociology of Sport Journal, 18(4),
403–413.
Turner, B.A., & Chelladurai, P. (2005). Organizational and occupational commitment, intention to
leave and perceived performance of intercollegiate coaches. Journal of Sport Management, 19,
193–211.
Turner, B.A. (2007). An examination of intercollegiate coaches’ commitment to their athletic director.
International Journal of Sport Management, 8, 180–192.
Turner, B.A., & Jordan, J.S. (2006). Commitment and satisfaction of coaches: Which is more important
in the retention and performance of coaches? Journal of ICHPER-SD, 43(4), 42–48.
Turner, B.A., & Pack, S. (2007). Multidimensional commitment of intercollegiate student-athletes: Its
effects on intention to leave and satisfaction. Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in
Education, 1(2), 141–156.
Turner, B.A., Jordan, J.S., & Sagas, M. (2006). Factors affecting response rates in survey research: The
case of intercollegiate coaches. Applied Research in Coaching & Athletics Annual, 21, 211–237.
Ukeiley, S.L. (1996). No salary, no union, no collective bargaining, scholarship athletes are an
employer’s dream come true. Seton Hall Journal of Sport and Law, 6, 167–222.
Wann, D.L., & Harrison, R. (2006). The power of university directors of athletics: Examining selfperceptions and coaches’ perceptions using the Power in Sport Questionnaire—2. International
Journal of Sport Management, 7, 234–249.
Wann, D.L., & Robinson, T.R., III. (2002). The relationship between sport team identification and
integration into and perceptions of a university. International Sports Journal, 6, 36–44.
Wann, D.L., & Sommerville, D.J. (2000). The relationship between university sport team identification
and alumni contributions. International Sports Journal, 4, 138–144.
Wann, D.L., Schrader, M.P., Allison, J.A., & McGeorge, K.K. (1998). The inequitable newspaper
coverage of men’s and women’s athletics at small, medium, and large universities. Journal of
Sport and Social Issues, 22, 79–87.
Weaver, M.A., & Chelladurai, P. (2002). Mentoring in intercollegiate athletic administration. Journal
of Sport Management, 16, 96–116.
Weber, L., Sherman, T., & Tegano, C. (1990). Faculty perceptions of the sources and types of pressure
to assist college athletes. Sociology of Sport Journal, 7(4), 389–393.
Wechsler, H., Davenport, A. E. , Dowdall, G. W., Grossman, S. J., and Zanakos, S. E. (1997). Binge
drinking, tobacco, and illicit drug use and involvement in college athletics. Journal of American
College Health, 45(5), 195–200.
Wechsler, H., Dowdall, G. W., Davenport, A., and Castillo, S (1995). Correlates of college student
binge drinking. American Journal of Public Health, 85(7), 921–926.
Wechsler, H., & Wuethrich, B. (2002). Dying to drink: Confronting binge drinking on college
campuses. New York: Rodale and St. Martin’s Press.
Weistart, J.C. (1996). Can gender equity find a place in commercialized college sports? Duke Journal
of Gender La and Policy, 3, 191.
White, S.A. (1985). The perceived purposes of sport among male and female intercollegiate athletic
programs and recreational sport participants. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 26, 490–
502.
Wiggins, D.K. 2000. Critical events affecting racism in athletics. In D. Brooks & R. Althouse (Eds.),
Racism in college athletics: The African American athlete’s experience (pp. 15–36). Morgantown,
WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Wiley, E., III. (1993). Juggling is the toughest sport in college. Black Issues in Higher Education,
10(20), 10–14.
Williams, L. (1994). Goal orientations and athletes’ preferences for competence information sources.
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 16, 416–430.
Williams, R.L., & Youssef, Z.I. (1975). Division of labor in college football along racial lines.
International Journal of Sport Psychology, 6(1), 3–13.
Williams, R.L., & Youssef, Z.I. (1979). Race and position assignment in high school, college and
professional football. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 10(4), 252–258.
Wolf-Wendel, L., Toma, J.D., & Morphew, C. (2000). Winning through diversity: Lessons from
intercollegiate athletics in creating community from difference. Washington, DC: National
Association for Student Personnel Administrators.
Wolf-Wendel, L., Toma, J.D., & Morphew, C. (2001). There’s no “I” in “team”: Lessons from athletics
on community building. The Review of Higher Education, 24, 369–396.
Wolfe, R., & Putler, D. (2002). How tight are the ties that bind stakeholder groups? Organization
Science, 13(1), 64–80.
Wolfe, R., Hoeber, L., & Babiak, K. (2002). Perceptions of the effectiveness of sport organizations:
The case of intercollegiate athletics. European Sport Management Quarterly, 2(2), 135–156.
Wolniak, G.C., Pierson, C.T., & Pascarella, E.T. (2001). Effects of intercollegiate athletic participation
on male orientations toward learning. Journal of College Student Development, 42(6), 604–624.
Yancik, A. M. (2000). Working the system: A study of the negotiation of eligibility in an intercollegiate
athletics program. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Sociology, University of
Arizona, Tucson, AZ.
Yetman, N.R., & Berghorn, F.J. (1993). Racial participation and integration in intercollegiate
basketball: A longitudinal perspective. Sociology of Sport Journal, 10(3), 301–314.
Yoh, T., Park, M., Pedersen, P., & Lee, C. (2007). Commitment to core values and organizational
effectiveness: A proposed conceptual model for intercollegiate athletic programs in the United
States. International Journal of Sport Management, 8(2), 210–225.
Zimbalist, A. (1999). Unpaid professionals: Commercialism and conflict in big-time college sports.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
©2014 Jay Coakley
Reading 5.
Ethnicity and sport participation among high school girls
The U.S. Department of Education has collected data on the ethnic minority backgrounds of girls
who played on high school sport teams in 1990 and in 2002. The data in these two studies can be
compared to see if a particular group has representative participation rates over time.
The data in the following table indicate that the participation of white girls increased more
than the participation of girls with other ethnic backgrounds over the 12-years between the
studies.
Most import in the table below are the figures in the fourth column indicating that Native
American and Asian girls have experienced little or no increases in participation over the 12 year
period.
Does this lack of increase represent a problem? Is there a systematic form of exclusion that
disproportionately affects girls in these categories?
In the case of Asian girls is the absence of an increase related to immigration and the
proportion of first generation students in schools? Is poverty a factor for either or both of these
categories of girls?
Are these girls missing out on particular benefits of sport participation that are not being
produced through other means, such as physical fitness, identification with the school,
opportunities to be noticed and have their interests advocated by adults?
These are questions that await research. Do you have any hypotheses to explain the patterns?
Increases in Interscholastic Sport Participation Among U.S. Sophomore Girls by Ethnicity, 1989-90
to 2001-02.
ETHNIC
GROUP
1989-90
Participation Rate
2001-02
Participation Rate
Percentage
INCREASE
over 12 Years
White
Hispanic (any
race)
Black
Native American
Asian
44%
29%
56%
36%
27%
24%
38%
38%
36%
47%
40%
36%
24%
5%
0%
Source: Based on data collected by the U.S. Department of Education and analyzed by
Sylwester (2005).
NOTE: Soon to be published research by don Sabo and Phil Veliz shows that current sport
participation and attrition rates follow the same patterns identified in the studies summarized in
this reading. However, participation increases for all groups leveled off after 2000.
©2014 Jay Coakey
Reading 6.
Conformity or leadership in high school sports
Too many high school programs are organized to emphasize obedience rather than responsibility.
This is counterproductive to the stated goals of interscholastic sports because the educational
benefits of sport involvement are greatest when athletes themselves make decisions affecting the
nature of their sport participation.
This does not mean that athletes do not need guidance; they do. But they also need
opportunities to become independent, autonomous young adults. Autocratic coaches with rigid,
externally imposed sets of rules reduce these opportunities and perpetuate immaturity and
dependence-even though they may win games.
My recommendation is that student-athletes in most high schools should be more involved in
decision making for their teams. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways. Sports are ideal
settings for students to learn responsibility through decision-making. For example, team
members should be involved in the development of team rules and enforcement policies, they
should be asked to play a role in developing team strategies, plays, and game plans, and they
should have opportunities to voice their thoughts during games, meets, and matches at
appropriate times.
Why should adult coaches make all the decisions on student sport teams? How does that
build responsibility?
Ideally, the goal of every coach should be to prepare his or her team to be self-coached at
some point during the season.
What would happen if coaches had to allow players to coach themselves for the last two
games of the season?
Having such a requirement would force coaches to build real leadership among players.
Athletes also should be involved in the evaluation of coaches and sports programs.
Internships should be organized to enable senior athletes to serve as assistant coaches, or as
coaches for junior varsity and junior high school teams. This would give them opportunities to
handle many different tasks and get management experiences in the process.
Varsity sports should be based on the principle that responsibility grows out of making
decisions and living with the consequences of those decisions. Responsibility is learned, not
implanted in a young person’s character by the commands and warnings of adults in positions of
authority.
Unfortunately, many varsity sports are organized to teach conformity and obedience instead
of responsibility and independence. This should be changed carefully so that sports can become
more clearly educational.
©2014 Jay Coakey
Reading 7.
Should intercollegiate athletes be paid?
Pay for student-athletes is one of the most contentious issues facing big-time sport programs
today, and it highlights what happens when universities enter the entertainment business.
As an ESPN Radio announcer said in 1999, "College sports are the only show business in
which the actual entertainers get no money. Believe me, the NCAA isn’t getting six billion so we
can watch . . . a bunch of chem majors [play basketball]. . . Give the player some money, for
crying out loud."
Paying college athletes would be an admission by the NCAA that certain sports are no longer
amateur. Once a paycheck is written, there are many issues raised related to workers' rights. For
example, no university wants to be responsible for the brain trauma and other long term injuries
that could be blamed on college football, so they will never go down this road. And if it doesn't
happen in football, it will never happen in basketball.
An alternative to paying athletes would be to provide them with guidance on how to use their
athletic status as a source of income, just as any student would do if he or she has a visible status
with commercial value. For example, an Athlete Speakers Bureau could train athletes to do paid
speeches for groups; part of the fee would go directly to the speakers, and part would allow the
bureau to pay athletes to give speeches to worthy nonprofit groups that cannot afford to pay a
fee. This would combine community service with developing public speaking skills.
There are many ways to combine learning with forms of fair compensation to studentathletes. Most require creative leadership, but that’s what universities have, or are supposed to
have.
To pay all athletes or only the athletes on revenue generating teams would completely change
the relationship between athletes and the university. As employees, athletes would be eligible for
all workers’ benefits including worker compensation when injured on the job. Athletes should
have this and other health-related benefits, and there should be controls on what the university
can rightfully expect from athletes in terms of hours worked per week.
To maintain current athletic programs under these conditions would force universities to
increase student fees or tuition rates to support the athlete-workers. This would create a backlash
from students and their parents who are already going deep into debt to pay for their education.
For these reasons, college athletics is at a major turning point in its history. Either
universities will be forced to fully embrace an entertainment model of sports or they must deemphasize their athletic programs so they cost much less.
The NCAA already has a difficult time convincing the public to accept that big-time college
athletes are simply amateurs. At times, even NCAA leaders have become confused as to the
rationale for its version of amateurism. For example, below is an excerpt from an interview that
took place between former NCAA President Myles Brand and Sports Illustrated columnist
Michael Rosenberg:
Brand: "They can't be paid."
Rosenberg: "Why?"
Brand: "Because they're amateurs."
Rosenberg: "What makes them amateurs?"
Brand: "Well, they can't be paid."
Rosenberg: "Why not?"
Brand: "Because they're amateurs."
Rosenberg: Who decided they are amateurs?
Brand: "We did."
Rosenberg: "Why?"
Brand: "Because we don't pay them."'
This conversation strongly suggests that the practice of referring to college athletes as
amateurs is arbitrary at best. Now that ESPN and other media companies are investing much
more money into the rights to broadcast college games, the universities are finding it
increasingly difficult to say that athletes in BCS football and big-time men’s basketball programs
are amateurs.
As everyone else makes more money from college sports, athletes have received no more
benefits than they have always received. To say this is fair is to ignore reality.
To bring Division I sports back to reality is a challenge that frightens university presidents
and creates pushback from boosters and other athletic department supporters who believe the
great sport myth.
©2014 Jay Coakey