Why Are Student Athletes Funding Your Future?: No More Excuses: Pay Me!

Copyright © 2016 Dr. Ernest E. Cutler, Jr. USN (ret)

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced by any means, graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping or by any information storage retrieval system without the written permission of the author except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

iUniverse

1663 Liberty Drive

Bloomington, IN 47403

www.iuniverse.com

1-800-Authors (1-800-288-4677)

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any web addresses or links contained in this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid. The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Thinkstock are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Thinkstock.

ISBN: 978-1-4917-8253-8 (sc)

ISBN: 978-1-4917-8254-5 (e)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2015920552

iUniverse rev. date: 01/04/2016

CONTENTS

Abstract

Glossary

Introduction

Background

Statement of the Problem

Purpose of the Study

Research Questions

Nature of the Study

Significance of the Study

Summary

Chapter 1: Literature Review

Documentation

Athletic Success versus Academic Achievement

Amateurism

Business of Intercollegiate Sports

Fair Market Value

Failure of Compliance

Performance Pressures

Pay for Play

Supplemental Employment

Rules Violations

Social Media

Student-Athlete Rights

Images and Namesakes

Cartel Behavior

Institutional Accountability

Leadership

Needs of Intercollegiate Student-Athletes

Title IX

Sports as a Model for Success

Student-Athlete Power versus NCAA Power

Proponents for Change

Federal Intervention

Economic Impact

Summary

Chapter 2: Research Method

Research Methods and Design

Population

Sample

Materials/Instruments

Data Collection, Processing, and Analysis

Assumptions

Limitations

Delimitations

Ethical Assurances

Summary

Chapter 3: Findings

Participant Demographics

Results

Evaluation of Findings

Summary

Chapter 4: Implications, Recommendations, and Conclusions

Implications

Recommendations

Conclusions

Appendix A: G*Power Analysis

Appendix B: Top Ten Schools with Largest Scholarship Shortfall

Appendix C: Top Ten Schools with Smallest Scholarship Shortfall

Appendix D: BCS Conferences - Highest and Lowest Scholarship Shortfalls

Appendix E: Online Survey Telephone Script

Appendix F: Online Survey Introduction/Implied Consent

Appendix G: The College Athlete

Appendix H: Focus Group Participants’ Informed Consent Form

Appendix I: Face-to-Face Interview/Focus Group Questions

Appendix J: Face-to-Face Interview Participants’ Informed Consent Form

Appendix K: Themes Emerged From Data Sources

Appendix L: Online Surveys, Interview Participants, and Focus Group Participant Demographics

Appendix M: 2014 Football Bowl Subdivision Universities

References

About the Author

To my beloved son, the accomplishments you have acquired over the years never fail to amaze your mother and I. As a result, the writing of this book further promotes and instills your legacy that you will leave with your children, family, and individuals directly influenced by your selfless enthusiasm on this subject matter. We pray that this book will be an inspiration to others.

Rev. ERNEST E. CUTLER, SR.

Pride comes the day I bestow a doctoral hood at graduation; however, true pride comes when the doctoral graduate transforms his research into a publishable work. Dr. Cutler investigated the issue of student-athletes’ financial shortfalls with keen diligence and insight. The content in this book is research-based and includes data from leading NCAA campuses across the United States.

JUDITH A. CONVERSO, PhD

Professor, Graduate School Dissertation Chair

Northcentral University

ABSTRACT

P romoting the use of supplementary stipends for intercollegiate student-athletes to offset scholarship shortfalls and compliance violations has been prevalent for the last two decades. Student-athletes are unpaid professionals. However, the revenues they bring in for the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) are being reviewed to decide whether athletic scholarships are monetarily fair for Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) student-athletes.

The problem investigated in this study is the NCAA’s nonapproval of supplemental income for current student-athletes to offset scholarship shortfalls, placing the success of the university’s athletic program and NCAA at risk if student-athletes lose their amateur status (e.g., violating current NCAA rules). The purpose of this qualitative multiple-case study was to analyze outlets of opportunity for the NCAA to alleviate athletic scholarship financial shortfalls. Data were collected via ten face-to-face interviews with separate FBS student-athletes at the University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA) and with focus groups consisting of twenty FBS student-athletes at UTSA. Supporting quantitative data utilized for descriptive purposes only were captured via online surveys with one hundred athletic administrators from 120 FBS universities (see appendix M).

Findings in this study include acknowledgement from FBS administrators of the annual economic impact FBS student-athletes have on their institutions. These administrators revealed that stipends were not outlets to be utilized to offset scholarship shortfalls.

Another finding was the disregard for change on this issue for the student-athletes from the hierarchy’s viewpoint. Concluded recommendations were to (a) allow small gifts for FBS student-athletes; (b) grant permission for FBS student-athletes to earn income from their popularity; and (c) create a cost-of-living stipend based on their local economy.

A call for future research based on the study’s findings could entail a quantitative study with an increased sample size of FBS administrators that would (a) explain transferable findings to similar FBS institutions that are dealing with the same phenomenon; (b) provide research of the market values of female versus male FBS student-athletes; and (c) allow examiners to conduct unbiased mixed-method design evaluations of current NCAA financial best practices within the FBS enterprise.

GLOSSARY

Amateurism, in the context of student-athletics, refers to participation in intercollegiate sports motivated primarily by a desire to learn and by the physical, mental, and social benefits to be derived (Rushin 1997).

Bowl refers to the intercollegiate football game played annually after the conclusion of the full football season. This game is played between two universities within their level of the NCAA that rewards institutions for the athletic successes for winning a minimum amount of games played between conference and nonconference opponents (Devries 2007).

Bowl Championship Series (BCS). The BCS is a group of five NCAA Division I college football games: the Fiesta Bowl, the Orange Bowl, the Rose Bowl, the Sugar Bowl, and the BCS National Championship. The goal of the BCS is to match the top two teams in Division I in the championship game. The top two teams are selected through the BCS rating system (Gomez 2011).

Bundled-rights agreement is an agreement made by student-athletes with companies such as CBS Sports or ESPN to provide direct benefits to the student-athletes through assistance with educational expenses and fees, health and safety expenses, personal or family expenses, and institutional academic or programming enhancements (Brown 2004).

Compliance violation is defined as any act or special arrangement to attain extra benefits from representatives not authorized by the NCAA that provides services to current intercollegiate student-athletes (Sims 2012).

Exploitation refers to the utilization of employing personnel for services rendered to maximize personal gains or profits via unfair means (Rushin 1997).

Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS). An FBS consists of 120 Division I universities that conduct a bowl postseason. FBS institutions give full scholarships to eighty-five players. The FBS postseason is governed by the BCS and is apart from and sanctioned by the NCAA (Wallace 2010).

Financial aid refers to grants and loans designed to provide financial assistance toward the costs of college education. Financial aid is offered through federal, state, institutional, or private programs. Although primary responsibility for educational expenses rests with the student and the student’s family, financial aid is available to students who would otherwise be unable to afford pursuing an education (Pueblo Community College 2012).

Grant-in-aid is when federal funding is transferred to central financial institutions to furnish subsidies for specific projects or programs (Rushin 1997).

Laundry money is a nominal sum of money, usually between $30 and $50, included in the scholarship package of each student-athlete. The laundry money would provide the student-athlete with sufficient funding to afford extras (such as social events, a bus ticket home for a family emergency, or similar concerns) (Haden 2001).

Likeness refers to an individual’s image, photograph, voice, personality, biographical information, and/or other personal identification (Axon and Berkowitz 2013).

Market value. The market value of a student-athlete is an estimation of an athlete’s time demands and contributable value while on a full scholarship (United Steel Workers 2011).

Namesake. A namesake refers to an individual’s name, nickname, sobriquet, signature, and/or other personal identification (Kaburakis 2012).

National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). The NCAA is an association of universities and institutions of higher learning that was comprised to support and endorse athletic programs for all students in programs that promote the well-being of the institutions they govern (Brown 2011).

National College Players Association (NCPA). The NCPA is a group started by UCLA football players that serves as an advocacy group for college student-athletes across the United States. The NCPA mission is to provide the means for college student-athletes to voice their concerns and to change NCAA rules (United Steel Workers 2012).

Stipend is a fixed sum of money paid periodically and usually agreed upon at the beginning of a work agreement. Stipends may be paid all in one sum or in equal installments throughout the work agreement (Loretto 2012).

Student-athlete is an individual who engages in, is eligible to engage in, or may be eligible in the future to engage in any intercollegiate sport. If an individual is permanently ineligible to participate in a particular intercollegiate sport, the individual is not a student-athlete for purposes of that sport (Oregon Law 2012).

Title IX is a federal law, passed in June 1972, prohibiting sex discrimination in education. The law applies to all educational programs that receive federal funding and to all aspects of the educational system of a school. Title IX was enacted after thirty-five years of efforts to promote and establish gender equity in schools (American Civil Liberties Union 2012).

INTRODUCTION

I ntercollegiate athletics within the current National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) organization contains alarming areas of concern. Rules infractions by student-athletes during their amateur status include various academic and personal conduct violations. The exploitation of student-athletes is evident on campuses around the country (e.g., through apparel sales of star athletes and from revenues garnered from their athletic prowess). Commercial exploitation is a result of student-athletes being treated as employees (McCormick and McCormick 2010). Due to yearly shortfalls, scholarships fail to cover expenses beyond room, board, tuition, books, and fees. Ideologies intending to protect students from amateurism—and promote a spirited refocus for all student-athletes on their personal academics instead of their professional ambitions—constrain intercollegiate stipends from offsetting these extra financial burdens. The sports conglomerate is too closely aligned with the success of the athletic program to be of much assistance in true oversight (Duderstadt 2002).

As a result, these issues coexist with one another due to the socioeconomic influence that intercollegiate athletics have on global society. The legitimacy of student-athletes being considered voluntary professionals reveals disparities between institutions’ market and their profitability (McCormick and McCormick 2010). Regarding this issue, proponents defend student-athletes and their position of trying to obtain fair and equitable treatment, while opposition supports institutions’ beliefs of preserving athletic amateurism in its current form. The union and its athletic departments, in conjunction with sports-apparel organizations, are continually searching for revenue opportunities at the expense and success of current student-athletes (Southall 2009).

In October 2011, the establishment agreed on legislation that allowed all universities to implement stipends for their current student-athletes. The amended approval amount was $2,000 to cover expenses that their current traditional scholarship could not cover. In 2011 NCAA president Mark Emmert echoed the sentiment of sanctioning institutions to implement stipend increases for academically compliant student-athletes to receive stipends to offset external expenses (Dinich 2011). The president’s proposal met disfavor among individuals who would be financially affected by such approved legislation.

Annual amendments would benefit each athlete and aid the university by decreasing scholarship gaps, reducing student-athlete rules violations, and allowing for additional expenses not paid by their scholarships to be covered. As a result the proposed amount was rescinded as of December 15, 2011, due to the 125 Division I board of directors agreeing that all its member institutions could not afford the large increase in the fiscal year—yet the majority of those institutions garner millions in profits annually.

Background

The promotion of supplementary stipends for intercollegiate student-athletes to offset scholarship shortfalls and compliance violations has been prevalent since the early 1990s. Naysayers suggest student-athletes receiving collegiate stipends would directly affect amateurism. Amateurism, in the context of student-athletics, refers to participation in intercollegiate sports motivated primarily by a desire to learn and by the physical, mental, and social benefits to be derived (Rushin 1997). Student-athletes are unpaid professionals, but the revenues and exposure they bring to the NCAA and its major institutions is looked upon as if they owe their school for their scholastic opportunity (Parrish 2013). University, broadcasting, merchandise revenues, endorsement deals, and the use of student-athletes’ images and namesakes are essential economic areas that the conglomerate depends upon for the successfulness of their annual economic achievements (Dohrmann and Evans 2013). Reforms must be established for student-athletes, not for external entities whose primary focus is personal enrichment and unfair exploitation (Vitale 2010).

Additionally, this issue of either approving new legislation for the student-athletes or remaining with current NCAA amateurism legislation has been debated annually by proponents and the opposition (Staples 2013). The establishment looks at financial opportunities on behalf of the student-athlete, but no new legislation has been approved as of the publication of this dissertation, and the student-athletes continue to incur expenses that their scholarships