Table 2 - uploaded by Donald L. Alexander
Content may be subject to copyright.
Source publication
State supported universities have been investing considerable sums in intercollegiate athletics in the hope that such investments will pay off in terms of increased enrollments, improved student quality, and economic benefits such as revenues from ticket sales and bowl and tournament appearances. Does athletic success also yield returns in the form...
Similar publications
Competitive balance in sport has been identified as a predictor of demand for sporting events, and leagues. Conferences frequently seek to maximize outcome uncertainty as a means of increasing demand. While competitive balance was not initially a goal of the Bowl Championship Series (BCS), competitive balance in American college football has genera...
This prospective, controlled, observational cohort study assessed the performance of a novel panel of serum microRNA (miRNA) biomarkers relative to findings on cervical spinal cord magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in collegiate football players. There were 44 participants included in the study: 30 non-athlete control subjects and 14 male collegiate...
For many years the desire for money and winning in Division I athletics, particularly in the sports of football (Football Bowl Subdivision) and men’s basketball, have encouraged colleges and universities to provide special admission for athletes with exceptional athletic ability, who in turn, often are less prepared to succeed academically. This ha...
Over the past decade, broadcast rights fees have been the source of much of the growth in revenues in the intercollegiate athletics industry. However, given that the industry is dominated by public and non-profit organizations such as the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), intercollegiate athletic conferences, postseason bowl games, a...
This study utilizes Nielsen ratings to estimate the factors that influence viewership
for Bowl Championship Series telecasts. Our modeling demonstrates increased
start-of-game ratings for contests of higher absolute quality, but not of anticipated
higher relative quality. Little support is generated for the notion of consumer preference
for scoring...
Citations
... Therefore, the independent variable of interest in model estimations was lagged by one year. This lag strategy is common among researchers looking to model student college costs (Alexander & Kern, 2010;Pope & Pope, 2009;Smith, 2012). ...
Many in the higher education community criticize the millions of dollars in financial allocations given to intercollegiate athletics departments by universities on the premise that when universities have to provide more allocation money to athletics, student costs increase. Evidence supporting this argument, however, is largely anecdotal. This study used fixed effects regression analyses to explore whether year to year changes in university funds allocated to athletics lead to higher student costs. Our findings call into question the argument that rising athletics allocations are a significant direct driver of student costs.
... Humphreys, however, does not find that either appearance in a bowl game or achieving a national ranking in the top 25 had a statistically significant impact on state appropriations. Alexander and Kern (2010) consider 117 schools from FBS, FCS and Division II for the period 1983-1984 to 2006-2007. They do not explain why their sample is more heavily weighted to FBS or why certain schools were omitted. ...
For the 65 colleges and universities that participate in the Power Five athletic conferences (Pac 12, Big 10, SEC, ACC, and Big 12), the football and men’s basketball teams are highly visible. While these programs generate tens of millions of dollars in revenue annually, very few of them turn an operating “profit.” Their existence is thus justified by the claim that athletic success leads to ancillary benefits for the academic institution, in terms of both quantity (e.g., more applications, donations, and state funding) and quality (e.g., stronger applicants, lower acceptance rates, higher yields). Previous studies provide only weak support for some of these claims. Using data from 2006–2016 and a multiple regression model with corrections for multiple testing, we find that while a successful football program is associated with more applicants, there is no effect on the composition of the student body or (with a few caveats) funding for the school through donations or state appropriations.
... without football; participation seems to matter more than success on the field. Alexander and Kern (2010) found that intercollegiate basketball has a similar effect. ...
In this essay we consider why American colleges and universities participate in big-time commercialized intercollegiate sports, and how sports came to play such a prominent role on American college and university campuses. We also review how the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) developed as a body to regulate player safety and transformed itself into an economic regulator, the means by which the NCAA attempts to maintain its control, increase revenues, and reduce costs for college sports programs. We also examine how the organization succeeds in the face of institutional characteristics that imply that its cartel activities would be doomed. Finally, we speculate on what changes might be on the horizon for the NCAA and college athletics.
... There is very little research available that examines how individual student-athletes perceive their athletic success. Most of the research focuses on athletic program success and economic issues including alumni giving (Cohen, Whisenant, & Walsh, 2011), tuition rates (Alexander & Kern, 2010), and state appropriations (Alexander & Kern, 2010), or on how student-athletes perceive their athletic experience (Potuto & O'Hanlon, 2006). Dilley-Knoles, Burnett, and Peak (2010) examined the role of academic support programs. ...
... There is very little research available that examines how individual student-athletes perceive their athletic success. Most of the research focuses on athletic program success and economic issues including alumni giving (Cohen, Whisenant, & Walsh, 2011), tuition rates (Alexander & Kern, 2010), and state appropriations (Alexander & Kern, 2010), or on how student-athletes perceive their athletic experience (Potuto & O'Hanlon, 2006). Dilley-Knoles, Burnett, and Peak (2010) examined the role of academic support programs. ...
Students’ perceptions of the campus climate can affect their success and outcomes. Student-athletes’ experiences with campus life are unique. The Student-Athletes Climate Study (SACS) is a national study of over 8,000 student athletes from all NCAA sports and divisions. The purpose of the study was to examine the influence of individual and institutional characteristics, as mediated by climate, on student-athletes’ (a) academic success, (b) athletic success, and (c) athletic identity. Results indicated that differences in outcomes existed based on institutional and individual characteristics. It was also clear that climate mattered. Six of the seven climate scales influenced the outcomes, and differences in outcomes based on sexual identity, Division, and featured sport participation were more salient when climate was taken into account. Positive aspects of climate led to increases in outcomes in almost every relationship. Implications for researchers and practitioners are discussed, as well as specific suggestions of initiatives to improve the climate to promote the success of all student-athletes.
... In support of this hypothesis, Humphreys (2006) found that those institutions fielding Division I football teams among a sample of 570 public universities receive about 8 percent more taxpayer funding than otherwise comparable universities without Division I football; participation seems to matter more than success on the field. In a follow-up study, Alexander and Kern (2010) found that basketball has a similar effect for Division I programs. ...
Big-time commercialized intercollegiate athletics has attracted considerable attention in recent years. Popularity of this uniquely American activity, measured by attendance, television ratings, or team revenues, has never been higher. At the same time, however, several high-profile scandals exposing unseemly behavior on the part of players, coaches, and even respected higher education institutions—as well as questions about the distribution of the enormous revenues pouring into university athletic departments—have marred the image of these college football and men's basketball programs. Currently there are several legal challenges to the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and its member institutions that may change dramatically and permanently the arrangements between the NCAA cartel, its member colleges and universities, and the “student-athletes” who play on the teams. These challenges all focus on the NCAA's collective fixing of players' wages. We describe this peculiar “industry,” detailing the numerous market imperfections in both output and labor markets, the demand for and supply of college athlete labor, and possible alternative arrangements in the college athlete labor market, including the ramifications of compensating players beyond the tuition, room, board, books, and fees that some current players already receive as grants-in-aid.
Students' perceptions of the campus climate can affect their success and outcomes. Student-athletes' experiences with campus life are unique. The Student-Athletes Climate Study (SACS) is a national study of over 8,000 student athletes from all NCAA sports and divisions. The purpose of the study was to examine the influence of individual and institutional characteristics, as mediated by climate, on student-athletes' (a) academic success, (b) athletic success, and (c) athletic identity. Results indicated that differences in outcomes existed based on institutional and individual characteristics. It was also clear that climate mattered. Six of the seven climate scales influenced the outcomes, and differences in outcomes based on sexual identity, Division, and featured sport participation were more salient when climate was taken into account. Positive aspects of climate led to increases in outcomes in almost every relationship. Implications for researchers and practitioners are discussed, as well as specific suggestions of initiatives to improve the climate to promote the success of all student-athletes.
A balanced panel (61 Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) football teams over 38 years) is used to estimate four regression models using time series and panel methods and identify variables that drive per-game season attendance. Variables are either stationary or co-integrated. Most coefficients are consistent across models: season win percentage, lifetime win percentage, undergraduate enrollment, and real gas price per mile driven were positive while real state per capita income exerted a negative impact. Unexpectedly, FCS games are inferior goods and greater travel costs raise attendance. Other coefficients displayed inconsistent results: playoff appearances in the last 10 years, county population, and state unemployment rate.
Previous research suggests that college and universities may use success in big-time intercollegiate athletics to increase tuition. The largest effects have been found at public institutions, especially for out-of-state tuition rates. The present study revisits those findings using a broader sample that includes private schools. Rates are more responsive to athletic success when tuition includes room, board, and fees-more so in the case of football performance than in basketball performance. When the dependent variable is exclusively tuition, there appears to be little relationship with the fortunes of sports teams. These findings point to a need for increasing student fees in order to continue participation in the so-called athletic arms race and the potential of room and board to serve as revenue streams for the host school.
Polarized opinions abound regarding whether athletics and especially football and men's basketball played in institutions competing in the Football Bowl Subdivision contribute to or detract from the mission of higher education. Proponents claim intercollegiate athletics enhances campus culture, provides competitive sport opportunities for athletically talented students, boosts external relations and national visibility, increases student applications, and generates additional donations. Opponents claim intercollegiate athletics require multimillion-dollar institutional subsidies that negatively affect academic programs, undermine academic integrity, and erode rather than enhance the character development of athletes and coaches. Positives and negatives characterizing amateurism, recruiting, academics, and commercialization challenge institutions as they attempt to balance the popularity of intercollegiate athletics with the need for balance in the role of this extracurricular activity in higher education. Fourteen changes advanced by presidents, independent organizations, other individuals, and the author are recommended and discussed.
Panel data with an instrumented real ticket price are used to estimate a regular season game-day attendance and per cent of capacity regression equations. Better team performance, whether short term (season wins), intermediate term (bowls games in last 10 years) or long term (lifetime winning percentage), higher undergraduate enrolment, traditional rivalries and video coverage increase per cent of capacity used. Poor weather (more rain or cloud cover), higher travel costs and larger local population decrease it. Fan interest wanes as a season progresses, but this is offset as a team wins more games. Games played near a National Football League stadium, those with conference opponents, non-FBS opponents and non-BCS opponents have lower stadium utilization. The substantive results of the analysis do not change when attendance is used as the dependent variable rather than per cent of capacity.
