USING SANCTIONED ATHLETICS PROGRAMS TO UNDERSTAND STAKEHOLDERS'
PERCEIVED INFLUENCE IN DECISIONS AT MAJOR RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES
By
Scott Hirko

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education
2011

ABSTRACT
USING SANCTIONED ATHLETICS PROGRAMS TO UNDERSTAND STAKEHOLDERS'
PERCEIVED INFLUENCE IN DECISIONS AT MAJOR RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES
By
Scott Hirko
This study set out to learn more about the perceived influence of stakeholders on
academic decisions affecting intercollegiate athletics, with the intent that such knowledge would
help provide useful implications for future leaders making decisions that impact unique student
populations. As an area of research, the semi-autonomous unit of intercollegiate athletics
provided insight into how individual stakeholders interacted, particularly around certain policies,
programs, or procedures. Estler and Nelson (2005) noted that, “an understanding of the nature
and role of forces influencing intercollegiate athletics allows new strategies for planning and
prioritizing sports within the college or university” (p. xi). Notably, in 2010, the situation around
American intercollegiate athletics was one in which many believed that the decision-makers at
higher education institutions were placing a greater emphasis on athletic success at a cost to
academic success. This tension between athletics and academics on campus provided a useful
context to investigate perceived influence of stakeholders.
A framework for the study was created to learn about those individuals who have a stake
in, and perceived they could influence, academic decisions in intercollegiate athletics. The
framework focused on the theories of power and influence, as well as a consideration of the
loosely-coupled system of athletics within higher education and also the shared governance
structure of higher education. Research focused on academic performance, admissions policies,
and course selection practices within intercollegiate athletics to understand who, how, and why
certain stakeholders may be, or may perceive themselves to be, influential in decision-making.

Interviews of 18 stakeholders were conducted at three major research institutions recently
sanctioned by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) for having poor academic
performance of several of their athletic teams. Using a constant comparative and cross-case
analysis of the data, several themes emerged from the interviews. Analyzing the themes from the
conceptual framework led to several implications for higher education stakeholders, including
faculty and administrative leaders. Implications contributed to the knowledge in higher
education about strategies stakeholders used to make decisions, particularly when situations are
most urgent. Three major implications were derived from this study: (1) Using urgency as a
management strategy can provide leaders with an opportunity to adapt and respond quickly to
situations, create greater stakeholder understanding of the rationale behind decisions, and
enhance institutional pride through shared values and symbolism; (2) The interactive nature of
situational leadership is an important implication, as stakeholders can realize their leadership
also depends on how their engagement with others is impacted by the situation and by the
environment; and, (3) Building and using cross-campus relationships is a critical tool for
stakeholders to influence academic decisions.

Copyright by
SCOTT HIRKO
2011

DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my family, the loves of my life: my partner, Mary Jo
Sougstad, and my children, Sierra Christine Hirko and Sage Olivia Hirko. We are a team
recognizing that our work together will lead to a brighter future. The love and devotion from
my family inspires me to be a better person, a better husband, and a better father.
I dedicate this dissertation to Dan and Mary Sougstad, my in-laws, for their support.
These two individuals provide me with a living example of what is meant by integrity and
wisdom. And, I dedicate this dissertation to my twin brother, Rhett Hirko, an individual to
whom I can always count on for support and understanding.

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I acknowledge the incredible support from, and fondness I have for, my dissertation
chair, Dr. Marilyn Amey. Not only is Marilyn the greatest and most inspiring teacher of all
time, but she has been there for me every step along the way, especially when I needed it most.
Marilyn is the defining example of a perfect mentor – and, it is an added bonus to know she will
be my friend for life.
Dr. MaryLee Davis is also an inspiration to me. From the moment I first met MaryLee,
she pushed me to reflect on and use my passions for policy, for education, and for athletics to
benefit my future career. Thank you, MaryLee, for your friendship, support, and direction.
The impact of Dr. Merilee Griffin and Dr. Deborah Lechuga on my dissertation was
significant: particularly, their remarkable intellect, decision-making, and caring. Your
friendship is… awesome.
I also acknowledge those involved with Michigan State University’s Higher, Adult, and
Lifelong Education program and also to Spartan athletics. Many of you whom I have had the
opportunity to meet and know have had a profound impact on my knowledge and understanding
of higher education. You know I “Bleed Green,” and I thank each and all of you for reassuring
my status as a Spartan for life.
I also thank the many individuals who took the time to participate in this dissertation. I
could not have done this without your time and knowledge. Thank you for making this study
possible.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................................................... x
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... xi
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1
Research Questions..............................................................................................................6
Definitions............................................................................................................................7
Significance of Study...........................................................................................................8
Summary ...........................................................................................................................10
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW ..............................................................................................................12
Introduction .......................................................................................................................12
Power and Influence in Athletics ......................................................................................13
College Athletic Decision-Making ...................................................................................17
Stakeholders.......................................................................................................................20
Athletic Directors...................................................................................................21
Faculty....................................................................................................................23
Directors of Admission ..........................................................................................25
Provosts..................................................................................................................26
Student-Athlete Support Services (SASS) Directors.............................................26
Presidents ...............................................................................................................28
Alumni ...................................................................................................................28
Boosters..................................................................................................................29
Media .....................................................................................................................30
Summary ................................................................................................................30
Academic Policies and Practices in Athletics ....................................................................32
Academic Progress Rates (APR) ...........................................................................33
Special admissions process ....................................................................................35
Major and course selection ....................................................................................36
Summary ................................................................................................................37
Chapter Summary ..............................................................................................................38
CHAPTER THREE
METHODS ....................................................................................................................................40
Research Questions............................................................................................................40
Constructivist Paradigm.....................................................................................................40
Qualitative Methodology ...................................................................................................41
Multiple Case Study Design ..............................................................................................43
Unit of Analysis .................................................................................................................44
Sample and Site Selection..................................................................................................45
Site selection ..........................................................................................................46
Midwestern University...............................................................................50

vii

Southern State University ..........................................................................50
Pacific Western University ........................................................................51
Stakeholder interviews...........................................................................................51
Data Collection ..................................................................................................................52
Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................54
Trustworthiness..................................................................................................................56
Summary ............................................................................................................................57
CHAPTER FOUR
FINDINGS.....................................................................................................................................58
Midwestern University.......................................................................................................59
Academic improvement plans................................................................................63
The role of University Program for Academic Success (UPAS)...........................65
Special admissions .................................................................................................66
2010 missed assignment policy .............................................................................68
SASS and academic eligibility...............................................................................70
Summary ................................................................................................................72
Southern State University ..................................................................................................72
NCAA probation and academic improvement plans .............................................75
Academic coaches program ...................................................................................77
Keeping athletes eligible........................................................................................78
Faculty-athletics interaction and conflict resolution..............................................79
Hiring coaches .......................................................................................................82
Special admits ........................................................................................................84
Summary ................................................................................................................86
Pacific Western University ................................................................................................86
Faculty Senate reduces financial support of athletics ............................................89
Administrative changes..........................................................................................91
Academic performance announcement..................................................................92
Special admits ........................................................................................................93
SASS and advising athletes ...................................................................................96
The role of the Athletic Director..........................................................................101
Summary ..............................................................................................................104
CHAPTER FIVE
DATA ANALYSIS......................................................................................................................105
Urgency............................................................................................................................105
Presidential Involvement .................................................................................................108
Faculty-Athletics Interaction ...........................................................................................111
Faculty-athletics interaction: Relationships.........................................................111
Faculty-athletics interaction: Structure ................................................................113
Summary ..........................................................................................................................116
CHAPTER SIX
IMPLICATIONS .........................................................................................................................118
Findings............................................................................................................................120

viii

Implications......................................................................................................................121
Urgency................................................................................................................122
Urgency: Enhancing leadership ...............................................................123
Urgency: Focusing attention ....................................................................125
Urgency: Emphasizing symbolism and shared values.............................127
Cross-campus relationships .................................................................................128
Institutional climate matters.................................................................................129
Limitations .......................................................................................................................130
Summary ..........................................................................................................................131
APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................132
Appendix A: Interview Guide..........................................................................................133
Appendix B: Invitation to Participate ..............................................................................136
Appendix C: Written Consent..........................................................................................137
Appendix D: Descriptive Questionnaire..........................................................................138
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................139

ix

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Names and titles of interviewees and their site affiliations ............................................58

x

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Qualitative Classes of Stakeholders ..............................................................................22
Figure 2. Perceptions from the literature of stakeholder influence on academic policies and
practices in college athletics..........................................................................................31
Figure 3. Priority Triangle ............................................................................................................97

xi

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
What affects individual decision-making within higher education helps to provide an
understanding of how to influence strategies on future decisions. In its simplest form, and
assuming a bureaucratic, rational way of organizational functioning (Bess & Dee, 2008),
learning who has the greatest impact in decision-making requires only a review of job titles of
individuals or looking at the top rungs of organizational charts; this will show who has greater
authority. However, research has demonstrated that higher education organizations do not often
follow the tenets of rational bureaucracies and that the different and unique environments of each
college and university have a significant effect on institutional decision-making (Bess & Dee,
2008).
Among other factors that affect postsecondary institutional decision-making, Alfred
(2006) considered external drivers (“shaped by forces outside of the institution” [p. 105]) and
internal drivers (“dynamics inside the institution” [p. 105]). External drivers affecting decisionmaking include stakeholders, competition, economy, and policies and programs from federal,
state, or local governments (Alfred, 2006; Bess & Dee, 2008; Brown, 1982; Leslie & Fretwell,
1996; Scott, 2003). Internal drivers affecting decision-making include stakeholders,
organizational structure, campus culture, individual personalities, and interpersonal interactions
among members (Alfred 2006; Baldridge, Curtis, Ecker, & Riley, 1978; Bess & Dee, 2008;
Bolman & Deal, 2003; Brown, 1982; Chaffee, 1985; Duderstadt, 2001; Leslie & Fretwell, 1996).
What is less clear is how these internal and external drivers are related to the perceived influence
of stakeholders, on decisions made in semi-autonomous units in a given college or university.
Implicit leadership theory suggests that individuals within an organization often expect
leadership from those at the higher levels of the organizational ladder (McShane & Glinow,

1

2008). However, in postsescondary institutions, the model of shared governance of
administration and faculty (Bess & Dee, 2008; Bogue & Aper, 2000; Clark & Youn, 1976;
Duderstadt, 2001), and the nature of how these institutions operate (often as a loosely coupled
system) (Orton & Weick, 1991; Weick, 1976) provide a different rationale to consider who is
involved in making decisions. Some fairly autonomous units retain levels of independence in
making decisions; such units include physical plant, food service, public relations, global
outreach, institutional technology services, and intercollegiate athletics (Bok, 2003; Duderstadt,
2001). These non-academic units are provided leeway (or, some level of autonomy) in how they
make decisions regardless of how those decisions may impact the broader institution or campus
climate (Duderstadt, 2001). The semi-autonomous nature of athletics is a particularly interesting
unit in which to consider perceived stakeholder influence on postsecondary decision-making
because the amount of media attention paid to athletics adds public scrutiny to decisions; and, the
historic tensions between academics and athletics makes it less clear who is most influential in
decisions related to the particular group of students who participate in athletics. That is the
purpose of this research.
Many non-academic units within a university, including athletics, provide significant
benefits to an institution’s mission despite potentially distracting educational values. For
example, there is a vocal contingent of faculty and administrators who appreciate the
contributions of athletics to the mission of higher education. External forces, such as alumni,
financial supporters, and media attention provide potential significant support of athletics (Toma,
2003; Zimbalist, 2001) while internally, athletics provide benefits such as institutional identity
(Duderstadt, 2003; Toma, 2003; Tratchtenberg, 2008), community pride (Moore, 1989; Toma,
2003), and student-athletes acquiring skills and discipline learned from participating in the

2

athletic experience (Miracle & Rees, 1994; Pascarella & Smart, 1991; Ryan, 1989; Scott, 2002;
Toma, 2003).
Yet, these benefits are juxtaposed against comparable criticisms of preferential treatment
and undue privilege (Sperber, 2000; Zimbalist, 2001). The end result is debate about who should
be in charge and most influential in decisions about athletics on a college campus. For instance,
critics of the semi-autonomous nature of intercollegiate athletics claim that college sports
devalue the mission of higher education because of its overemphasis on responding to external
forces such as commercialization (Duderstadt, 2003; Flower, 2003; Knight Commission on
Intercollegiate Athletics, 2010, 2001; Sperber, 2000, 1990), public pressure for success in
athletic competition without the same demand for academic success (Bok, 2003; Duderstadt,
2003; Stern, 2003; Thelin, 1994), and special privileges afforded to athletics (Sperber, 2000;
Zimbalist, 2001). From within higher education, many faculty and administrators criticize
athletics as devaluing the mission of higher education by spending a disproportionate amount of
attention and energy on athletics instead of academics (Bok, 2003; Briggs, 1996; Duderstadt,
2003; French, 2004; Meggyesy, 2000; Shulman & Bowen, 2001; Sperber, 2000, 1990; Thelin,
1994).
Several specific examples of internal and external forces help to elucidate how decisionmaking in athletics has created tension between athletics and academics. In 2009, the University
of Oregon (UO) rescheduled spring graduation in order to host the NCAA Track and Field
championships. The decision improved the visibility of UO across the nation, increased
commercial benefits to the institution and the community, and provided a prominent stage of
competition for the participating student-athletes. Yet, many at UO felt the decision also
compromised the priority of academics at UO as subservient to the desires of athletics.

3

Subsequently, the decision drew sharp ire from UO faculty: “Oregon athletics and the university
administration are again reaching for a quick payout at the expense of academic quality and
institutional integrity” (Tublitz, 2009). Those who work in athletics also acknowledge the
academic-athletic tension. Gerald Gurney, senior associate athletics director at the University of
Oklahoma, expressed concern about the use of academically underprepared students to help
athletic teams succeed: “Think about the terror a poorly prepared student-athlete must feel … in
the classroom. Imagine how that affects their daily lives. It's a far more formidable opponent
than anything they'll face on the court or on the field” (Weiberg, 2009, para. 5). In 2008, USA
Today published an investigative series that found student-athletes’ choice of major was
significantly affected by a combination of policies and practices that require athletes to progress
toward graduation at a certain rate without consideration of how significant time commitments
for their sport impact their course selection (Brady, 2008). A 2009 report from the Knight
Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics included comments from a president of a National
Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I-Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) member
institution, expressing concern about the impact to the mission of education from significant
media attention on athletics: “There’s too much identification of a university with non-academic
aspects, distracting from values of higher education and from desirable values in society”
(Knight Commission, 2009, p. 30).
As noted by former Harvard University president Derek Bok (2003) and former
University of Michigan president James Duderstadt (2003), and as also found in a Knight
Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics (2007) survey of more than 2,000 faculty nationwide,
the problem was that some stakeholders may have had too great an influence on academic
policies, programs, or practices in athletics despite the fact that academics was outside of their

4

purview. And, other stakeholders perceived they felt powerless to influence academic decisions
in athletics despite their expertise in education, curriculum, or student development. The
resulting tension between academics and athletics was due to the perception of decisions that
provided coaches and student-athletes the tools to succeed on the playing field as the priority
over resources for the same student-athletes, and their instructors, to succeed in the classroom.
The extent to which academic success plays a role in the development of athletic policies,
programs, or practices may be affected by the influence of the stakeholders involved. In
addition, there is an expectation that the perceived influence of stakeholders may vary based on
the policy, program, or practice. For instance, athletic directors involved in the competitive
nature of athletics may have more influence than faculty or provosts in shaping academic
policies, programs, or practices in athletics; while other policies, programs, or practices may
improve an institution’s athletic success, they may also be detrimental to student-athletes’
individual academic success. In addition, considering that curricular matters are within the
faculty bailiwick, it is reasonable to expect that faculty perceive they have some influence on
academic policies, programs, or practices in athletics but the research is inconclusive (Alfred,
2006; Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, 2007; NCAA, 2006).
The aforementioned examples demonstrate how decisions that relate to the fit and
function of intercollegiate athletics within the educational mission of higher education are an
area of concern involving both internal and external environments for many of the nation’s
largest and most high-profile higher education institutions (Bok, 2001; Duderstadt, 2001; Toma,
2003). The reference to environments in this study includes factors, drivers, culture, and climate.
A high-profile field such as intercollegiate athletics is an appropriate area to research perceived
stakeholder influence in decisions because the pressure to make decisions that help athletic teams

5

win is felt not only by the players, but by coaches, athletic administrators, college presidents, and
others in leadership positions (Duderstadt, 2003; Estler & Nelson, 2005); and, these decisions are
often covered and promoted in all forms of the media. Decisions made to succeed athletically are
often perceived to be at odds with an institution’s academic mission (Duderstadt, 2003; Sperber,
2000; Thelin, 1994). Furthermore, the greatest amount of attention in the highest level of
intercollegiate athletic competition (NCAA Division I-FBS) is paid to the sports of football and
men’s basketball (Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, 2010; Toma, 2003) in which
academic performance has historically lagged behind most other sports at the NCAA Division I
level of competition (Duderstadt, 2003; Lapchick, 2006; NCAA, 2006a; NCAA, 2009).
A better understanding of the influence and perceived influence of different stakeholders
in making decisions that affect the academic performance of student-athletes would help to
clarify why and how certain policies, programs, or practices are implemented. Specifically,
choosing to investigate stakeholders’ perceived influence on academic decisions that impact
football and men’s basketball may help shed light on the influence of stakeholders in decisions
that impact fairly autonomous units and, more broadly, in higher education institutions. It is
expected the results will lead to implications which identify ways that individual stakeholders in
fairly autonomous units, such as athletics, can be influential.
Research Questions
This study is intended to understand how stakeholders influence decision-making at
major research universities, particularly who, how, and why individuals impact academic
decisions related to athletics. The following research questions guided this study:
1. What factors contribute to the perceived influence of stakeholders on decisions about
academic policies, programs, or practices in athletics?

6

2. What is the relative amount of perceived influence of stakeholders on decisions about
academic policies, programs, or practices in athletics?
Definitions
The following are definitions, including several academic policies, programs, and
practices that were used to understand the relative amount of influence of stakeholders.
College athletics refers to athletics competition involving individuals from two or more
American higher education institutions. More specifically, for this study, college athletics
referred to intercollegiate athletics at major research universities who were also members of the
National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (NCAA) most competitive level, Division I-Football
Bowl Subdivision (FBS).
Stakeholders relate to “groups and individuals that affect or are affected by the actions,
decisions, policies, practices, or goals of an organization” (McDaniel & Miskel, 2002, p. 329).
More generally, stakeholders are “those elements in the environment surrounding the
organization that have some reason to care about what happens to it” (Bess & Dee, 2008, p. 715).
With respect to intercollegiate athletics, stakeholders are individuals with a stake in the outcomes
of athletic policies, programs, or practices, and may also refer to individuals who play an
important role in developing intercollegiate athletics policy (Estler & Nelson, 2005). Each of the
stakeholders who relate to academic decisions affecting athletics is addressed in the next chapter,
but those stakeholders on which this study focuses included: admissions directors, alumni,
athletic directors, boosters, faculty, media, presidents, provosts, and Student-Athlete Support
Services (SASS) directors.

7

Significance of Study
This study is relevant across campus, not just within athletics, but to decision-makers
involved, and influencing, other areas of campus. Three academic policies, programs, or
practices affecting college athletes are used as an example of how stakeholders can understand
situations and use strategy to influence decisions in areas of their interest. These policies,
programs, or practices are: Academic Progress Rate (APR), special admittance policies, and the
process of athletes selecting a major. APR is the measure adopted by members of the NCAA
intended to assess each Division I athletic team’s progress toward graduating its players, with
associated penalties for not meeting established benchmarks. The intent of APR is to provide a
term-by-term progress report of all members of an athletic team toward graduation (NCAA
2006a); however, APR does not directly measure student-athletes’ learning.
Many colleges have a special admittance policy that allows for gifted individuals to be
admitted, even though their high school grade point average, ACT, or SAT test scores may not
meet an institution’s minimum admissions standards (Andre & James, 1991; Byers, 1995;
Duderstadt, 2003; Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, 2001; Lapchick, 2006;
Thelin, 1994; Zimbalist, 2001). This includes athletically-gifted individuals who applied to major
research institutions.
Major selection refers to the practice of steering student-athletes to specific majors
deemed less academically rigorous for various reasons, primarily to ensure that student-athletes
meet both NCAA and institutional requirements as being on track toward graduation within a
five-year period (Brady, 2008; Weiberg, 2009). Similarly, clustering refers to the practice of
student-athletes’ decisions to take a specific course with several other student-athletes either as a
form of friendship with their peers, because time demands from their sport restricted their choice

8

of courses (NCAA, 2009), because the courses are perceived as less challenging (Diacon, 2008;
Thamel, 2006), or because there is a professor deemed favorable to grading student-athletes
because of the student’s role as an athlete (Diacon, 2008; Thamel, 2006).
By using the three aforementioned academic policies, programs, or practices affecting
college athletes, this study will help to better understand how stakeholders influence policies,
programs, and practices in higher education through the context of a semi-autonomous unit,
namely intercollegiate athletics. And, stakeholders may likely perceive their influence varies
based upon the policy, program, or practice. As noted by Estler and Nelson (2005), “an
understanding of the nature and role of forces influencing intercollegiate athletics allows new
strategies for planning and prioritizing sports within the college or university” (p. xi). An
investigation into academic decision-making related to athletics helps provide useful
perspectives on the nature of influence in the development and implementation of policy,
programs, and practices, particularly how certain positions or groups interact within and across
unit structures when making decisions.
Internal and external environmental contexts that influence decision-making, including
situational and organizational factors, are also considered in this study. The organizational
structure of a higher education institution is a useful perspective through which to learn about
perceived stakeholder influence on decision-making in semi-autonomous units by allowing for
hierarchical, horizontal, or other political processes to be taken into account, including when
examining decisions about athletics (Bess & Dee, 2008; Bok, 2003; Duderstadt, 2003).
More specifically, using the area of athletics at America’s largest institutions –
particularly major research universities – should help shed light on stakeholders who made
decisions affecting a fairly autonomous area of campus. Stakeholders, including administrators,

9

faculty, and the public, could gain a more clear understanding of the rationale behind developing
and implementing policies, programs, or practices – most significantly how positions or groups
interact on decisions.
Questions about the influence of stakeholders provide the direction for this study. The
questions are intended to learn how and why stakeholders should position themselves to be
influential in decisions, whether in their area of discipline or otherwise. Further, the questions
provide insight into the extent that stakeholders’ perception about their influence varies based on
different policies, programs, or practicies. Several additional questions may help to provide
answers which may be useful to campus stakeholders. For instance: Why, and to what extent, did
some stakeholders have, or perceive to have, influence over decisions either within or outside of
their area of expertise? How was stakeholder influence, or perceived influence, reflected in
alignment between policies, programs, or practices and institutional mission? How did
stakeholders perceive they influenced on decisions impact the type of policy, program, or
practice that was implemented? To what extent did academic policies, programs, or practices
shaped by stakeholders affect the academic performance of students, including student-athletes?
Summary
This chapter provided the rationale for investigating stakeholder influence in decisionmaking in higher education, using as an area of study the fairly autonomous area of athletics,
particularly considering the internal and external forces that resulted in tensions between
academics and athletics. The relative amount of perceived influence of stakeholders involved in
decisions likely significantly impacts how policies, programs, or practices are created, and how
the decisions subsequently affect students. This investigation addresses a need to better
understand who, why, and how certain stakeholders influence decision-making in higher

10

education, including decisions in intercollegiate athletics. The next chapter reviews the literature
relating to the theories of power and influence, as well as a theoretical presentation on
organizational structure and governance. Stakeholder theory was used to construct an
understanding of those individuals who have a stake in, and can influence, academic decisions in
semi-autonomous units, such as intercollegiate athletics. In addition, research on academic
policies affecting intercollegiate athletics was provided as a context to understand who, how, and
why certain stakeholders may be, or may perceive themselves to be, influential in decisionmaking.

11

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
The tension between athletics and academics in higher education plays out in public and
private arenas across the nation, including daily newspapers, organizational think tanks like the
Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics or the Drake Group, and in boardrooms among
university trustees. On campuses, making decisions that create (or merely imply) tradeoffs of
academic needs against athletic needs often include a clash of values propagated by many
different people involved in the issues: faculty, academic administrators, athletic administrators,
media interests, alumni, and others. Examining this decision-making process through an
investigation of influence and power among the stakeholders will help to better understand the
academic-athletic tensions in higher education (Estler & Nelson, 2005). This chapter provides
the context for the current study by reviewing the literature on influence in intercollegiate
athletics and in higher education, an understanding of the role of stakeholders in higher
education decision-making, and policies, programs, or practices affecting the academic
performance of student-athletes.
The conceptual framework is drawn from an analysis of four areas of literature: power
and influence in higher education, organizational theory, stakeholder theory, and a review of
intercollegiate athletic policies relating to the academic performance of student-athletes. The first
area of the literature review investigates how difference aspects of power influence decisionmaking processes on academic policies within higher education. The second area includes a
discussion of how colleges and universities operate from a shared governance perspective and
the structure of colleges and universities as loosely coupled systems within which decisions are
made. The third area uses stakeholder theory to explain the influence of different stakeholders’

12

on decision-making. The final area investigates three academic policies, programs, and practices
common among many institutions in NCAA Division I athletics. Organizing the chapter this way
helps the reader understand how academic policies, programs, and practices can be used as
lenses to see stakeholders influence in the academic side of intercollegiate athletics.
Power and Influence in Athletics
To frame this study, I consider how power and influence affect the creation, process, and
outcome of decisions on academic policies and practices affecting intercollegiate athletics. When
combined with legitimacy (formal rules, structure, and control), power can take the form of
authority (formal control to make final decisions) and influence (ability to affect decisions)
(Bacharach & Lawler, 1980; Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, 1997). This study focuses on how
influence impacts decision-making, particularly the extent that stakeholders perceive they can
affect decisions on academic policies and practices in athletics despite the hierarchical nature of
their position (or, despite their authority). Below I present an understanding of power through
which influence is realized.
The common thread with respect to the different aspects of power is that power is a form
of control and those in power are dependent upon their relationship with others. Weber’s (1947)
classic definition is “the probability that one actor within a social relationship will be in a
position to carry out his own will, despite resistance, and regardless of the basis on which this
probability rests" (p. 152). I prefer the definition of power by Parsons which considers situational
aspects, relationships, perceptions, and considers units as well as individuals: “power is the
realistic capacity of a system-unit to actualize its interests within the context of system-

13

interaction and in this sense exert influence on process in the system” (Bacharach & Lawler,
1980, p.17).
This study considers a stakeholder’s perceived influence on decision-making of academic
policies and practices in athletics through the ability to create, place, or use power in a particular
relationship, potentially by reward or punishment (Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, 1997). Many
individuals who participate, administer, or follow college sports attempt to influence individuals
who have the authority to affect campus athletics policies and practices; for example, this may
include faculty who attempt to influence a policy to ensure student-athletes who lack proper
academic preparedness are not admitted to campus. Those within intercollegiate athletics
recognized control as a key aspect of power when the NCAA followed the 1991
recommendations of the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics and changed its
governing model to strengthen presidential control at institutions and at the NCAA (Knight
Commission, 2001; Solow, 1998).
Constructing an understanding of influence in college athletics depends on a realization
of how stakeholders’ perceive their power in a higher education setting. Kilian (1969) noted that
most identifiable human characteristics are sources of power depending on the circumstance. He
shared a variety of individual traits that may help to create power: money, knowledge,
intelligence, competence and skill, physical force, and coercion. Certain group characteristics
may also affect power, including motivation, zeal, dedication, and clearly perceived values.
Furthermore, other individual skills help to construct power such as courage, audacity, energy,
speed, and agility. Considering the distribution of power from a business perspective, some
companies allocate power differently in the business world: either through personal
characteristics and networking (ability to negotiate and to convince), or by successful job

14

performance, formal rank, and loyalty (Schein, 2004). Of particular importance is to understand
any of these characteristics are converted to power by authority and influence by the role group
position, or converted to power by their perceived value of others. “To convert them to power,
the power seeker must find human beings who value the things sufficiently to obey his orders in
return” (Friedrich, 1937, p. 23). These characteristics are a useful checklist to help identify the
sources of power stakeholders use to influence athletic decision-making on academic policies or
practices.
Understanding the influence of stakeholder groups in college athletics should also take
note of the nature of power in the loosely coupled organizational dynamics of higher education
(Weick, 1976), since “groups and individuals seek to maximize their local advantage, even at the
expense of others" (Bess & Dee, 2008, p. 540). Often, when one assumes a position or some new
responsibility, the individual may attempt to enhance their influence on decisions while in that
position. An individual’s abilities (as noted in the sources of power above) to expand their power
is separate from their authority, or the organizational power ascribed to their job. Therefore, this
study focuses on the sources of power by considering the relative amount of perceived influence
between different stakeholder groups on academic policies, programs, and practices. An example
of considering relative amounts of perceived influence comes from Solow’s (1998) study of
faculty athletic committees. The research included concerns that, while Faculty Athletics
Representatives (FARs) are positioned at the junction between faculty and athletics
administration, their influence on decision-making may be diminished to the extent they are coopted into “less critical views of athletics” (Solow, 1998, p. 19).
Two recent studies from the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics help to
provide some stakeholder perceptions about the amount of power affecting intercollegiate

15

athletics decision-making. In a 2007 study of faculty perceptions on athletics-related decisions,
the Athletic Director was “perceived [by faculty] to have more power than the institution’s
president, board of trustees, faculty, or alumni” (Knight Commission, 2007, p.8). And, a 2009
study of presidents from Division I-FBS member institutions revealed that “presidents believe
they have limited power to effect change on their own campuses regarding athletics financing
and the larger problems it has created” (Knight Commission, 2009, p. 16). The same study noted
that “outside sources of income has had a significant impact on big-time intercollegiate athletics
as a whole, and hence also on presidents’ control over budgets and influence over reform”
(Knight Commission, 2009, p. 17). It is notable that the studies are among the few to investigate
the perceived amount of influence or power of stakeholders on intercollegiate athletics.
However, the studies do not consider specific academic policies or practices affecting college
athletes; rather, they reflect faculty and presidential views toward college athletics as a whole,
the financial aspects of college athletics, and also the affect of athletics on the values of higher
education. Furthermore, the relative amount of perceived influence by stakeholder (such as
faculty influence in relation to presidents’ influence and the influence of other stakeholders) is
not investigated by either of the Knight Commission studies.
Understanding the role of influence within the organizational structure of higher
education is an important consideration given the model of intercollegiate athletics on campus.
The organizational dynamics of the higher education institution affects the role that stakeholders
have on athletic decision-making. And, how athletics fits on campus and within the academic
mission is affected by stakeholder relationships. The next part of this chapter is intended to
provide an understanding of the organizational dynamics of higher education institutions, and
how they affect the influence of stakeholders on athletic decision-making.

16

College Athletic Decision-Making
American higher education systems are complex by nature, and colleges have various
organizational structures and contexts in which power can influence decisions across an
institution (Clark & Youn, 1976; Duderstadt, 2001), including decisions affecting intercollegiate
athletics. Decision-making in higher education is both bureaucratic and collegial, depending on
the organizational structure, the circumstances, and the environment (Birnbaum, 1989). In other
words, while decisions need to be made (describing the need for bureaucracy), there is a wide
variety of experience and knowledge that allows for sharing information (describing the need for
collegiality) with regard to decisions. Within this complex structure, higher education
administrators and faculty members are separated by linked (Bess & Dee, 2008): separated by
their own discipline, different departmental structure, or possibly in a different building, but,
linked within a bureaucratic structure involving decision-making from other offices, including
offices with higher authority. Examples of this separate-but-linked structure include a president
approving a budget request by a college, or a faculty athletic council reviewing a student-athlete
admissions policy. The aforementioned structure describes a shared governance model
(Baldridge, Curtis, Ecker, & Riley, 1978; Dill, 1984) which allows for faculty, each member of
whom is often primarily focused on their discipline, to have significant influence on the
operations and administration of the university including in areas beyond, or perceived to be
beyond, their bailiwick (Duderstadt, 2001). For instance, faculty members within colleges and
departments have their own internal power and influence over personnel and curriculum (Bess &
Dee, 2008; Clark & Youn, 1976); the same could be said for administrators operating from their
areas of expertise (Bess & Dee, 2008). Within the governance structure, faculty share a
collective value toward academic principles as the predominant force around which individual

17

and group roles are shaped. However, for this collective value to exist as a faculty cornerstone,
faculty purposefully exclude administrators, students, student-athletes and athletics, and other
non-faculty members as contributors to this value of academic principles (Brown, 1982). As a
result, the model of shared governance leads to a tension often found when those lower on the
hierarchical ladder with their own academic-centric value-set attempt to influence decisionmakers with greater authority; or, attempt to include those in other areas of campus which have
different, misunderstood, or potentially conflicting values (Duderstadt, 2001).
Because of the complexity of how higher education institutions are managed,
organizational theories can be useful in understanding how certain elements of a higher
education institution work with each other, such as academic departments, campus
administration, or athletics departments. Weick’s (1976) analysis of higher education institutions
as “loosely coupled” systems is particularly useful in this study because it provides an
understanding of the identity of different elements of a college, as well as the interrelation and
responsiveness between the elements in certain events or decisions. Those elements that are
responsive but separate with their own identities are “loosely coupled”; the more responsive, the
“tighter” they are coupled. Loose coupling provides a context to look more directly at the
“human workings which underlie organizational structure” (Orton & Weick, 1990, p. 218),
particularly the processes that create a complex, higher education institution. Orton and Weick
(1990) call for a dialectical interpretation of loosely coupled systems in which each of the
elements are distinct and are also responsive. The process of decision-making in a loosely
coupled system would allow for distinctiveness and responsiveness to influence a decision. This
“judgment decision-making strategy” (Thompson, 1967, p. 138) refers to university structures

18

that include a combination of multiple perspectives on situations to help create a collective
judgment.
Athletics has a unique fit in higher education’s organizational structure; as a part of the
institution, it must reflect the institution’s academic values, yet it also is often provided a semiautonomous nature that many believe allows for decisions external to academic values and more
in line with a business culture than an academic culture (Andre & James, 1991; Bok, 2003;
Duderstadt, 2003; Estler & Nelson, 2004; Sperber, 1990). Frey (1994) found that college
athletics departments are loosely coupled within an institution and the complexity of athletics
makes it difficult for stakeholders external to the athletics department to have any control over
athletics. Borland, Howard, et al. (2009) state authority over athletic decision-making can be
from certain stakeholders either internal to the institution (president, provost, faculty, fiscal
officers, athletic coaches) or external to the institution (state government legislators, athletic
associations, athletic leagues, and state institution governing boards). The authors note that
stakeholders’ engagement in athletics issues also gives them certain authority because they end
up expressing what they expect out of, and from within, athletics. Some stakeholders’
expectations from athletics may include winning teams, ethical coaches, positive academic
performance, or quality athletic facilities.
Considering loosely coupled systems as a context for decision-making within higher
education helps to understand how institutions allow individuals or groups on campus in similar
or different areas to influence decisions. By identifying boundaries around specific events and
elements to be “coupled,” such as specific academic policies or practices affecting athletics,
researchers can better understand how an organization operates. Through the use of loose
coupling as a context, researchers can couple organizational structure, the authority of those

19

making decisions, and the specific policies or practices under consideration. As noted by Weick
(1976), “the question of what is available for coupling and decoupling within an organization is
an eminently practical question for anyone wishing to have some leverage on a system” (p. 39).
Therefore, the next area presents how stakeholder theory can help understand how certain
individuals use leverage to affect athletics decision-making. Literature about the role of different
influential stakeholders in athletics decision-making is also provided.
Stakeholders
As part of the study of the effects of power influencing academic decision-making in
college athletics, a look at the role of stakeholders perceived influence on policies and practices
is in order. Stakeholders are an important construct in intercollegiate athletics policy by
discussing the influence of presidential leadership, commentary from boards of governors,
faculty recommendations, and foundations (Estler & Nelson, 2005). Faculty, alumni and
boosters, media, politicians, presidents, and athletic directors were identified by Duderstadt
(2003) as stakeholder groups influencing athletics at the University of Michigan. Stakeholder
theory is a useful lens within educational policy because of the impact of educational decisions,
actions, policies, practices and goals on parents, academics, business, students, and others in
education (McDaniel & Miskel, 2002). And, stakeholder salience is directly related to
administrators’ perceptions of power, legitimacy, and urgency (a claim for immediate attention)
(Agle, Mitchell, & Sonnenfeld, 1999). In other words, when considering implementing or
adapting policy designed by administrators, certain stakeholders undoubtedly have a strong role
in the outcome. The theory posits that power, legitimacy, and urgency are attributes that can
change for any individual or relationship and are perceived differently by different individuals
(Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, 1997). Power, legitimacy, and urgency are also socially constructed by

20

stakeholders and are critical components to consider in stakeholder influence (Mitchell, Agle, &
Wood, 1997). Thus, social relationships and interactions between and among stakeholders also
impact organizational decision-making (Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, 1997; Rowley, 1997).
Different levels of organizational dynamics within a campus include different
intersections of stakeholders engrained in myriad institutional policies and practices, with each
stakeholder potentially having a different influence on policy making. Identifying stakeholders’
perception of power, urgency, and legitimacy can help determine their influence on academic
policies and practices in athletics. Mitchell, Agle, and Wood (1997) propose three categories of
stakeholders depending on their possession of power, urgency, and legitimacy (Figure 1). Latent
stakeholders have low influence in an organization’s decision-making, possessing only one of
the three attributes. Expectant stakeholders have moderate influence in an organization’s
decision-making, possessing two of the three attributes. Definitive stakeholders have high
influence in an organization’s decision-making, possessing all three attributes.
Phillips (2003) stated it is the “job of the theorist to suggest reasons for inclusion of an
entity as a stakeholder group” (p. 141). The literature was used to develop an understanding of
potential stakeholders which may influence academic policies in athletics. This review discusses
how stakeholders intersect with academic policies and practices in intercollegiate athletics,
provides insight about the values of those with (or without) the influence on athletic decisionmaking, and provides an understanding of how stakeholders may perceive academic decisionmaking in athletics.
Athletic Directors.
At many higher educational institutions which provide intercollegiate athletics at the most
competitive NCAA level (Division I), the Athletic Director is in charge of the operations of the

21

Figure 1. Qualitative Classes of Stakeholders. Adapted from “Toward a theory of stakeholder
identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts,” by Mitchell,
Agle, and Wood (1997), The Academy of Management Review, 22(4), p. 872. For interpretation
of the references to color in this and all other figures, the reader is referred to the electronic
version of this dissertation.

athletics department. The Athletic Director is perceived to be either an expectant or a definitive
stakeholder with both power and legitimacy; depending on the decision to be made, he or she
may also have urgency. The Athletic Director has a stake in the direction of the institution, the
Athletics Department, and the student-athletes; and, the institution has a moral obligation to the
Athletic Director both as an employee and as the primary individual who influences decisions in
athletics. An athletic director has a wide array of complicated administrative duties involving

22

issues of financial, personnel, rules and laws, and steering the department through the
institutional culture. He or she is responsible for the integrity and financial health of the athletics
department (Duderstadt, 2003).
The influence of an athletic director as a stakeholder on academic decisions in athletics is
similar to the role of a CEO of a major corporation (Sperber, 1990). When it comes to athletic
decisions, faculty perceive the Athletic Director has more power than any one else at an
institution, including the President and Board of Trustees (Knight Commission, 2007; Solow,
1998). Yet, in their analysis of the structural design of several college athletics departments,
Cunningham and Rivera (2001) found that the extent of centralized power of an athletic director
did not affect the educational success (graduation rates) of athletes.
Faculty.
Faculty have a stake in the direction of the institution, the academic success of the
students and the institution, and the development of curriculum. Further, the institution has a
moral obligation to the faculty because they are employees who also influence curricular
decisions (Alfred, 2006; Clark, 1963; NCAA, 2006b, Schulman & Bowen, 2001). In academic
decisions, faculty may be perceived as expectant stakeholders, with legitimate claims in
controlling curricular matters, and with power through academic governance. In respect to
athletics, “faculty attitudes may affect the academic performance of athletes” (Shulman &
Bowen, 2001, p. 73) particularly through athletics scheduling conflicting with class time and a
negative perception of academic preparedness of athletes. While faculty perceive to have a
certain level of influence on academic decisions or policies affecting athletes, the actual power
faculty have to affect decisions may not be as great as they perceive or desire. Faculty
historically have a “lack of power in governance” (Thelin, 1994, p. 187) in reforming athletic

23

policy as a result of the locus of control for athletic policy decisions away from academics, the
role of faculty in the structure of the American university, and failure of institutional leadership
to listen to faculty in non-academic decisions. Many faculty feel helpless (or powerless) to
influence athletics policies on campus. A 2007 survey of 2,000 faculty members at 23 NCAA
Division I campuses found that “professors are generally dissatisfied with the extent to which
faculty input is considered when athletics decisions are made, and are more dissatisfied (44
percent) than not (25 percent) with the range of faculty perspectives considered by administrators
when athletics positions are formulated” (Knight Commission, 2007, p.5.).
Yet, the NCAA recognizes the legitimacy of faculty in athletics through a Faculty
Athletics Representative (FAR), in which each NCAA member institution is required to appoint
a faculty member to serve in an official role to ensure institutions maintain the appropriate
balance between academics and intercollegiate athletics. In most cases, FARs are given their
authority by appointment from administrators (presidents, athletic directors, the NCAA), so as a
result, there is concern that FARs are less critical of athletics (Solow, 1998). Faculty athletic
committees typically consist of faculty members who serve as watchdogs of the athletics
department and institutional athletic issues, and serve at the nexus between academics and
athletics. One insight into the potential of faculty influencing academic policy-making in
athletics was provided by Carodine, Almond, and Grotto (2001), who proposed that faculty
committees could “recommend policy changes related to academic issues affecting or affected by
intercollegiate athletes, admissions procedures, and the academic progress of all student athletes
at NCAA member institutions” (p. 31). However, Sperber (2000) was outspoken about faculty
athletic committees as ineffective because they do not include faculty who believe athletics

24

corrupts academic values. Therefore, the extent that faculty have power and legitimacy over
academic policies and practices in athletics seems questionable.
Directors of Admissions.
The selection of students to attend an institution and students’ subsequent academic
success impacts institutional prestige. To that extent, directors of admissions affect the future
direction of institutions by creating and implementing policies and practices which lead to
admittance decisions. Directors of admissions have a legitimate stake in which students will be
admitted and thus influence decisions on the composition of the student body, including the
admission of student-athletes. Admissions decisions may develop a sense of urgency when
reviewing all applicants to be admitted, particularly at institutions with more competitive
admissions process or with less academic support services for students. In their study of college
athletics and educational values, James Schulman and William Bowen (2001) identified the
admissions process as the “key junction in creating not only the student body of the present but
also the alumni of the future” (p. 30). Certainly, the stake is high for admissions officers to make
decisions when potential students (or athletes) may be academically underprepared. The authors
clearly stated the pressure on admissions officers when institutional practices influence
admissions, and when the largest NCAA Division I institutions are willing to accept substantially
lower academic qualifications in favor of gifted athletic qualifications. While pressures exist,
admissions offices use athletics to help promote the institution as its front porch, or its welcome
mat, to undergraduates (Sperber, 2000) despite research which disputes the effectiveness of
athletic success on admissions (Frank, 2004).

25

Provosts.
A provost, or vice president of academic affairs, has legitimacy as the chief academic
officer at a college or university. A provost also has power as the campus leader with respect to
the values of academic integrity and helping to formulate academic policy on a campus. The
influence of provosts on academic decisions in athletics may be greater for those that believe in
the value of faculty involvement as a key to successfully shared governance; and, even moreso if
busy presidents provide provosts with heightened authority over the day-to-day operations of an
institution (Miller & Pope, 2002). Decisions on policies affecting the education of college
athletes as students -- within the academic mission of an institution -- seemingly fall within
provosts’ bailiwick. While the power and legitimacy of provosts categorize them as expectant
stakeholders in academic decisions, this may not be as transferable to the influence they have on
academic policies and practices specifically in athletics.
Student-Athlete Support Services (SASS) Directors.
In a 2008 article, USA Today demonstrated the pressure on student-athlete academic
support services (SASS), which serves on the front lines of the academic side of college
athletics: “Teams that fail to meet academic standards can lose scholarships. That puts [SASS
directors] in the crosshairs as they juggle constituencies with competing interests: athletes who
want to play, coaches who want them eligible and provosts who want them to graduate” (Brady,
2008, para. 8). As explained below, due to their direct contact with athletes, SASS directors have
a legitimate stake in how an organization’s academic policies affect student-athletes.
Historically, advising student-athletes has focused on maintaining academic eligibility and
graduation rates rather than on enhancing the academic, personal, and athletic development of
the student-athlete (Broughton & Neyer, 2001). Since 1991, the NCAA has required member

26

institutions to provide academic support to athletes where necessary, which has legitimized the
role of student-athlete support services across the country. Often, SASS directors are assigned to
student-athletes in order to assist them with making decisions on course selection or major
selection to help keep them on path to graduation. SASS directors differ from advisors in
academic departments with respect to the particular knowledge of the scheduling and time
commitments of athletic games, practice, and competition. Furthermore, SASS directors are
knowledgeable of NCAA academic eligibility requirements and keeping student-athletes on track
to graduation, and thus are often pressured by athletes, coaches, or the athletics department in
decisions on specific student-athletes (Steeg, Upton, Bohr, & Berkowitz, 2008).
There is abundant literature which focuses on how policies or practices for SASS can
improve the academic performance of athletes through better focus on student development,
including social and psychological needs (Broughton & Neyer, 2001; Carodine, Almond, &
Grotto, 2001; Gaston-Gayles, 2004; Hollis, 2002; Melendez, 2006). Within athletics
departments, Cunningham & Rivera (2001) noted that graduation rates of athletes was not
affected by the extent that employees were empowered to make decisions, including SASS
directors at some institutions in which SASS was part of the athletics department. However,
there is no research on the structural relationship between SASS and athletics departments within
collegiate organizations; indeed, many SASS departments are not housed within athletics
departments, and thus there may be differing types of accountability for SASS staff. Still, the
NCAA requires institutions to account for the academic success of its student-athletes.
The literature also does not examine how SASS directors influence the creation of
academic policies, programs, or practices. At minimum, SASS directors are latent stakeholders
who influence academic policies and practices based on their legitimacy. But, the lack of

27

literature about the role of SASS directors as stakeholders speaks to the need to better understand
the extent that they may influence academic policies and practices, particularly considering how
SASS is at the front lines of the academic performance of student-athletes.
Presidents.
Although college presidents may be the CEO of their institution, many realize they are
not completely “in charge” when dealing with athletic policies and practices. The Knight
Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics acknowledged the stakeholder relationship of
presidential influence in athletics in a 2001 report: “presidents and trustees must work in harness
– not wage the battles so commonplace today over control of the athletic enterprise. Presidents
cannot act on an issue as emotional and highly visible as athletics without the unwavering public
support of their boards” (Knight Commission, 2001, p. 24). Comments from NCAA presidents in
a 2009 study on the economic concerns in college athletics supported the feeling of
powerlessness on individual campuses: “the presidents who have had their heads handed to
them? A high percentage of them had that happen because it was something to do with athletics”
(Knight Commission, 2009, p. 15); and, “the real power doesn’t lie with the presidents;
presidents have lost their jobs over athletics” (Knight Commission, 2009, p. 16). Certainly,
presidents have legitimacy and have power at an institution, but the literature questions the
extent that presidents as expectant stakeholders can influence athletics.
Alumni.
Alumni have an interest in the athletic success of their intercollegiate athletics program,
but are not owed an obligation by the institution as it relates to academic decision-making in
athletics. However, many alumni believe they have power to exert influence, despite resistance.
Their power classifies them as latent stakeholders without legitimacy or urgency. For instance,

28

Duderstadt (2003) denigrates the motives of some alumni who become obsessed about athletics
enough to “undermine their governance and hence integrity by putting excessive pressure on
coaches, athletic directors, and even university presidents” (p. 250). Others note that alumni
influence athletic directors and institutions enough to prioritize athletic success at the expense of
academic needs (Kjeldsen, 1982; Sperber, 2000). The literature infers that the power exerted by
alumni does influence athletic decision-making, if not academic decisions in athletics.
Boosters.
Like alumni, boosters may also wield significant financial influence on the athletic
success of their intercollegiate athletics program. While boosters are owed an obligation for their
financial contributions to athletics, they typically do not play any legitimate role in academic
decision-making in athletics. Because of their financial contributions to college athletics (such as
buying tickets to football games, contributing to athletic endowments, helping pay for new
athletic facilities) boosters are seen as individuals who have influence yet, who may not
appreciate the academic values of an institution (Sperber, 2000). Boosters “attract high-caliber
athletes and coaches to a growing and successful athletic program. The college or university
athletic program with a well organized booster club of political and economic elite will survive”
(Frey, 1982, p. 227). The relationship is often a silent quid-pro-quo, as boosters also reap
economic and political benefit from their common association with athletics. As noted in the
2009 Knight Commission presidential survey, major university presidents feel significant
pressure from boosters to support or reject policies that may influence a team’s wins or losses.
Thus, boosters are latent stakeholders, who wield power but lack legitimacy and urgency.

29

Media.
In his mapping of stakeholders, Phillips (2003) includes media as a perfect example of
stakeholders which can “help or hinder organizational objectives” (p. 126). Much of the opinionmaking about college athletics and sport teams is driven by the disproportionate amount of media
interest in sports as related to the academic enterprise. The high amount of attention the media
pays to sports leads to a greater amount of urgency to issues in athletics, and thus greater
awareness of sports by more people than awareness of a physics lab experiment, a debate in
English class, or even a jazz band recital (Bailey & Littleton, 1991; Duderstadt, 2003).
Organizational managers, such as athletic directors and presidents, should take account of the
affects of the media on organizational decision-making (Phillips, 2003). The effect of the media
on an institution’s athletic program is influenced by the media’s motives: a story can be
investigative, or driven by entertainment or commercial demands (Duderstadt, 2003; Lapchick,
2006; Zimbalist, 2001). The motives and context of a media report may have as much influence
on academic policies and practices in athletics as the content of the media report itself. The
media seemingly have a latent stakeholder relationship, external to the institution with no
legitimate role, but conceivably some urgency to influence decisions.
Summary.
The literature was used to develop a perception of how certain stakeholders may
influence academic policies and practices in college athletics. More specifically, this chapter
included discussions of perceptions of power, legitimacy, and urgency for each stakeholder.
Another way to understand the literature review about each of the three of the aspects of
influence (power, legitimacy, and urgency) for each stakeholder was by mapping each of the
aspects onto the model of qualitative classes of stakeholders (Figure 2). For example, the

30

Figure 2. Perceptions from the literature of stakeholder influence on academic policies and
practices in college athletics. Adapted from “Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and
salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts,” by Mitchell, Agle, and Wood
(1997), The Academy of Management Review, 22(4), p. 872.

aforementioned literature review of presidents stated that presidents had legitimacy and power,
but the literature review did not include urgency: thus, presidents were included within the model
as expectant stakeholders between power and legitimacy (included in the circle of power and the
circle of legitimacy, without inclusion in the circle of urgency). This helped to create an initial
understanding of the stakeholder relationships. However, the literature review demonstrated

31

limitations to this model in that it did not adequately define the relative amount of influence of
each stakeholder. Further, the model did not adequately define the relative impact of social
relationships on stakeholders’ perceived influence, which may be particularly salient in decisions
in loosely coupled organizations, such as higher education institutions.
Academic Policies and Practices in Athletics
To date, the literature about academic policies and practices in college athletics
predominantly examines the outcomes from national policies instead of examining the
stakeholders who influence institutional policies. Below is shared the more significant literature
on academic policies and practices affecting college athletics, including NCAA Academic
Progress Rates (APR), special admissions policies, and the practices of major and course
selection. It is through an examination of these academic policies and practices that we can
understand the role that stakeholders’ perceive they may have to implement them at the
institutional level.
One of the more significant policy changes affecting the influence over academic
decision-making in athletics came from the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics,
which in 1989 recommended (and subsequently adopted by the NCAA) that decision-making
power over NCAA policies be moved from athletic directors to presidents (Knight Commission,
1991; Thelin, 1994). This allowed for presidents of NCAA-member institutions to lead the
adoption of policies such as Proposition 48 and Proposition 16 – fiercely debated by coaches,
athletic directors, faculty, and presidents – which set minimum academic guidelines for studentathletes to qualify for intercollegiate competition (Petr & Paskus, 2009; Thomas, 2006).
However, the federal graduation rate data used to help create those policies failed to consider the
significant differences in mission and heterogeneity of Division I-FBS institutions (Ferris,

32

Finster, & McDonald, 2004). Similar concerns have been raised that the NCAA’s Academic
Progress Rate (APR), implemented in 2005, fails to consider different institutional curricular
policies which impact student-athlete’s path to graduation (Diacon, 2008). Each college or
university may have differing admissions and curricular practices and policies, thus reducing the
validity of either the federal graduation rate or the APR as measures of assessing each
institution’s effectiveness of student-athletes’ educational attainment.
So, while significant academic policies are created in aggregate, it is up to each
institution to determine how best to implement policies and practices on their own campus. And,
in loosely coupled systems (Weick, 1976), higher education institutions rely on a variety of
stakeholders to influence academic policies and practices. Below, I touch on the research of
NCAA Academic Progress Rates, special admissions policies, and major and course selection in
an attempt to gain insight on the potential role of stakeholder influence.
Academic Progress Rates (APR).
The research on the NCAA’s Academic Progress Rate (APR) has focused primarily on its
ability to predict retention (Crom, Warren, Clark, Marolla, & Gerber, 2009; Marx, 2006), its use
as a measurement of academic success (Diehl, 2009) and college choice (Lucas & Lovaglia,
2005), and comparing APR scores with institutional funding for academic support services
(Bouchet & Scott, 2009). Next, there is a brief description of APR followed by a review of the
scholarly discussion about its implementation at the institutional level.
The APR is intended to demonstrate the academic progress of an athletic team toward
graduation, and takes into consideration the extent that student-athletes remain both academically
eligible and remain in school over a six-year period. Teams that fail to reach a benchmark score
(a 925 APR score which the NCAA predicted would equate to a 50% graduation rate) may be

33

banned from post-season participation, lose scholarships, and their institutions are required to
create academic improvement plans. Because the APR measures student-athletes’ academic
eligibility and retention, it is reflective of student-athletes’ classroom performance and the extent
that student-athletes are able to proceed on a timely basis through majors and coursework toward
graduation. Considering the needs of student-athletes to remain academically eligible, the APR is
also reflective of how student-athletes may talk to faculty or academic advisors to discuss
academic choices and classroom performance. Conversely, institutions do not want their athletic
teams to be penalized, and thus will “create policies, programs, and services in order to assist atrisk athletes” (Schiferl, 2009).
In their discussion of the APR data collection process, Petr and Paskus (2009) noted that
“policy discussions among presidents, faculty, athletics directors, coaches, and student athletes”
(p. 91) have influenced the role of academics in college athletics. Educational mission and
curriculum decisions differ greatly by institution (e.g., pass/fail grades, major or course selection,
attendance, transfer credits), and can significantly distort how students or student-athletes qualify
for APR points (Diacon, 2008). The NCAA’s aggregate research of APR scores found that
degree attainment for men’s basketball players is hurt by retention failure and not academic
failure; and football’s academic problems are related to a slow degree process and in-season
academic failures (Petr & Paskus, 2009). Stakeholders may influence policies to improve APR
scores in football through in-season academic support services and in men’s basketball by
focusing on retention-improving measures. The literature demonstrates the differences in
environment and mission at each institution which allow stakeholders to influence academic
policy-making in athletics, such as APR academic improvement plans, from their own college
environment.

34

Special admissions process.
Another academic policy in athletics relevant to this study is special admissions, or
admitting student-athletes to an institution regardless of the institution’s minimum academic
requirements. There are recent concerns that APR may indirectly affect the special admissions
process. In research about perceived APR effectiveness on academic success, 64 percent of the
75 Division I- FBS Faculty Athletics Representatives surveyed believed the APR would
positively impact academic caliber of student-athletes because “coaches and athletics
departments will take a closer look at the type of student-athlete being admitted” (Christy,
Seifried, & Pastore, 2008, p. 6). This finding provides a glimpse into the perception that faculty
as stakeholders have concerns over the academic preparedness of student-athletes entering
college and the admissions policies which allow such student-athletes to circumvent standard
academic admissions criteria. Indeed, special admissions policies for student-athletes have been
of significant scholarly debate, but less of significant research. Shulman & Bowen (2001)
provided the most in-depth critique of the relationship between admissions policies and academic
performance of college athletes. Their research at academically high-profile public and private
institutions found that not only did athletes enter college with weaker academic qualifications
than non-athletes, but they were also more likely to concentrate in particular majors, and coaches
were playing a greater role influencing the admissions process.
Stakeholders in positions more tightly coupled to athletics – such as coaches, athletic
directors, or SASS directors, may have greater influence on admissions policies for athletes than
other stakeholders. Coaches or athletic directors may spend more time cultivating positive
relationships with admissions offices, enhancing athletes’ holistic profile, or raising the public

35

profile of potential players to pressure admissions into admitting them (Stevens, 2007). For
example, an investigation on ESPN’s Outside the Lines found a practice at Florida State
University in which student athlete academic coordinators labeled as many as 20 football players
as learning disabled to skirt minimum NCAA standards and admit them as athletically-talented
students (Farrey, 2009). Also of consideration for stakeholders involved in creating policies or
practices on admitting athletes are studies finding that the head coach and academic support
services are primary factors for an athlete’s college choice decision (Gabert, Hale, & Montalvo,
1999; Letawksy, Schneider, Pedersen, & Palmer, 2003), regardless of a student-athlete’s
academic preparedness.
Major and course selection.
A student-athlete’s selection of major may be influenced by stakeholders who are
cognizant of a combination of policies and practices: special admissions in which many studentathletes may not be adequately prepared for the academic rigors of college, requirements for
student-athletes to progress toward graduation, and the significant amount of time required for
student-athletes to practice and travel to play in athletic contests (NCAA, 2009a). Donna
Lopiano, who served as the Director of Women's Athletics at the University of Texas at Austin
from 1975 to 1992, summed up some of the many concerns about the education of college
athletes: “the imperative of staying eligible sometimes trumps the best interests of athletes who
get nudged into majors they might not otherwise choose” (Brady, 2008, para. 10). This is
confirmed by a 2009 NCAA study of Student-Athlete Support Services (SASS), which found
that more than 80 percent of SASS directors believed it was most important to ensure studentathletes graduate; less than 10 percent believed it was most important for student-athletes to have
a major choice; less than 10 percent believed it was most important for student-athletes to retain

36

athletic eligibility; and less than 5 percent believed it was most important for student-athletes to
choose a major based on course availability (NCAA, 2009a).
Three recent studies questioned the role of APR in academic decisions that lead studentathletes to cluster into certain majors or courses to keep them academically eligible for athletic
competition. Denhart, Villwock, and Vedder (2009) found the mere existence of clustering raises
the real issue of true academic improvement as a result of APR. Indeed, the 2009 NCAA study
found that 62 percent of SASS directors surveyed believed that clustering had not increased since
introduction of the APR, while 27 percent believed it had increased. Fountain and Finley (2009)
identified APR as potentially exacerbating issues of Atlantic Coast Conference football players
being tracked into less rigorous majors or being clustered into courses as a result of pressures on
coaches, academic advisors, and professors for athletic teams to avoid NCAA penalties for sub925 APR scores. Neither Denhart, Villwock, and Vedder (2009), nor Fountain and Finley (2009),
provided evidence of the role of APR in major selection, yet they shared a glimpse into how
stakeholders perceived their relative amount of influence on major selection as a result of APR.
And, while the NCAA study found a majority of SASS directors believed clustering was not
caused by APR, a significant number believed that APR did impact student-athletes’ major
selection.
Summary.
The three policies and practices mentioned above are well engrained in the culture of
intercollegiate athletics and have significant impact in the academic performance of football and
men’s basketball players on most NCAA Division I campuses. Each of the policies and practices
provide a useful context to better understand the how stakeholders may influence, or may

37

perceive they have the opportunity to influence, academic policies, programs, or practices
affecting college student-athletes’ academic performance.
Institutions responding to NCAA sanctions for having poor APR scores are useful sites to
investigate the perceived influence of stakeholders. Because policies, programs, or practices
must be created to improve the academic performance of teams with poor APR scores – and
because both special admissions policies and course selection impact APR scores – these
institutions are useful places to learn about the relative amount of perceived influence of
stakeholders involved in creating these potential solutions.
Chapter Summary
The literature review provided a foundation for studying how stakeholders may
influence academic policies affecting football and men’s basketball players at major research
universities which are members of NCAA Division I. Laying out a conceptual framework of
how power influences decision-making within the loosely coupled organizational structure of
higher education helps clarify how stakeholders may influence decisions. The review provided
an understanding of how athletics fits within the model of higher education to help identify
potentially relevant stakeholders to understand their perceptions of power and influence over
athletics decisions in relation to other stakeholders.
The three academic policies and practices affecting college athletes included in this
review – APR academic improvement programs, special admissions policies, and major and
course selection – were identified as higher profile issues which strike to the heart of the tensions
between athletics and academics in higher education. They therefore are useful as lenses through
which to view how stakeholders perceive they can influence the decision-making of athletics
within the mission of higher education. Using stakeholder theory helped to understand how

38

certain individuals within higher education construct their perception of influence over policies
and practices. Several different role groups were identified as stakeholders who are likely to have
some relative amount of influence over academic decision-making in athletics – athletic
directors, faculty, directors of admissions, provosts, presidents, SASS directors, alumni, boosters,
and the media. The next section of this study will discuss the research design and methods used
to collect data from these identified stakeholders.

39

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
The purpose of this qualitative study was to investigate the relative perceived influence of
different stakeholders on academic decisions that affect policies, practices, or programs in
intercollegiate athletics. This was a multiple case study involving three purposefully selected
institutions using face-to-face interviews as a primary method of data collection. This chapter
outlines the research design for the study, the rationale for a qualitative case study approach, the
unit of analysis, the site selection process, the selection of stakeholders, the process to interview
each stakeholder, data analysis, and trustworthiness.
Research Questions
1. What factors contribute to the perceived influence of stakeholders on decisions about
academic policies, programs, or practices in athletics?
2. What is the relative amount of perceived influence of stakeholders on decisions about
academic policies, programs or practices in athletics?
Constructivist Paradigm
This study was guided by a constructivist point of view, in which knowledge is coconstructed by the researcher and the subjects and realities are numerous, constructed, and
holistic (Lincoln & Guba, 2000). The underlying assumptions of the constructivist paradigm are
that each individual creates their own reality of a situation, that knowledge is a human
construction, is always changing, and the results of a study are shaped or influenced by the
researcher during the investigative process. Constructivist inquiry considers: the realities of the
researcher, the subject, and the environment; the relationship between the researcher and subject;
and, integrates the role and interpretations of the research in the study itself (Manning, 1997).
The belief of a constructivist paradigm is an “understanding and reconstructing of the

40

constructions that people (including the inquirer) initially hold, aiming toward consensus but still
open to new interpretations as information and sophistication improve” (Guba & Lincoln, 1994,
p. 113). The use of a constructivist paradigm for this study was important because it helped
provide an understanding of interviewees’ responses with respect to the environmental context of
each individual and their institution.
Qualitative Methodology
The research questions for this study were directed at obtaining information from
stakeholders about the relative amount of perceived influence on decisions; responses about
influence are impacted by others and by their environment, and are thus socially constructed.
Thus, it was important to use qualitative methodology to obtain data that can provide an
understanding about influence as well as the factors on influence, including other stakeholders
and the environment. Qualitative methodology is consistent with inquiry directed at meaning and
interpretation of the human experience, an understanding of a world in which realities are
constructed by the researcher. It has “as its purpose a description and understanding of human
phenomena, human interaction, or human discourse” (Lichtman, 2006, p. 8). Qualitative research
allows for the researcher to collect and interpret data from a subjective point of view in which
the realities are influenced by others and are thus socially constructed. In other words, the use of
qualitative research aims to produce understandings based on a data collection process that is
flexible and sensitive to the social context in which the data are produced (Mason, 1996). As the
data were gathered from interviews and research in the field, themes emerged to help better
understand the phenomena and find a theory to explain the data (Merriam, 1998). A qualitative
study was best for this research to describe, understand, and interpret the data instead of a
quantitative inquiry which would have examined cause and effect (Lichtman, 2006).

41

Within an organization, much of the interaction and communication between individuals
may be social, informal, or private, and not necessarily documented. The dynamics of
interpersonal interaction are particularly poignant when it comes to studying the influence of
particular individuals (or, stakeholders) on decision-making (Scott, 2003). Attempting to
understand these relationships and interactions requires a process of collecting insightful,
content-rich data that include the complexities of power and influence among stakeholders in a
campus organizational setting. This process was applicable to this research, in which learning
about how stakeholders perceived their influence in athletic decision-making necessitated an
understanding and interpretation of social interactions as they related to academic policies,
programs, and practices such as APR academic improvement programs, special admittance
policies, and the practice of major selection of athletes.
Two methods of qualitative data collection were most appropriate for this study:
document analysis and interviews. Document analysis – such as reviewing official documents
presented to the NCAA, internal communications or policies, or school or community
newspapers – provided historical, demographic, and personal information, and also helped to
shape the direction of interviews (Glesne, 1999). Interviews were a useful form of data collection
to gather information that could not be directly observed, particularly when investigating past
events (Merriam, 1998). Semi-structured interviews are focused interviews with issues and
questions developed from an interview guide to help make the process of multiple interviews
more systemic and comprehensive (Patton, 1990; Yin, 1984). An interview guide (Appendix A)
was created for this study based upon the conceptual framework and knowledge derived from the
literature review, specifically relating to influence, interaction among stakeholders, and
institutional policies, programs, and practices. A pilot test of the interview guide with a SASS

42

director from a Division I-FBS institution helped to ensure content validity and reduce potential
bias. Revisions, as necessary, were made following the pilot test. Semi-structured interviews
allowed for open-ended responses, which provided additional insight, and each interview had
slight variations based on emergent questions or themes in the course of interviewing (Glesne,
1999, p. 68). Furthermore, because time was expected to be limited as a result of the leadership
roles of the stakeholders to be interviewed, an interview guide provided an advantage to best use
the limited time available (Patton, 1990).
Multiple Case Study Design
Interviews at three different campuses were used to investigate the research questions in
depth and obtain content-rich data. Case studies include an “examination of factors that explain
present status and that influence change over time” (Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh, 2002, p. 441).
Case studies in educational research are useful particularly when investigating the affect of
influence on decision-making, and not just the outcomes of a policy, program, or practice
(Merriam, 1998). The three institutions selected as case sites for this study, and the site selection
process, are included later in this chapter.
Each case provided an opportunity to interview individuals in order to understand how
and why events occurred in their natural context (Green & David, 1981). Data from the case
studies included perceptions of individual and institutional behaviors, as well as reflecting the
holistic environment within which the individual, institution, and the situation were being
studied.
Yin (1984) referred to a multiple case, replication design as one that requires careful
selection of each case in order to replicate results. Elements that related to the conceptual
framework laid out in the literature review helped to form a context by which I created an

43

interview guide to “achieve sufficient variation on the factors most likely to explain the events
and outcomes of interest” (Green & David, 1981, p. 7). Using multiple locations to interview
multiple stakeholders, with a greater variation of institutions across the cases, helped to make the
data more compelling (Merriam, 1998). Miles & Huberman (1994) explained the benefits of
using multiple case sites: “By looking at a range of similar and contrasting cases, we can
understand a single-case finding, grounding it by specifying how and where and, if possible, why
it carries on as it does” (p. 29). Replicating the data collection process at different locations and
analyzing the results through the study’s theoretical framework helped to answer the research
questions.
In addition, Yin (1984) differentiated between holistic and embedded case study designs.
A holistic case study considers a case as a global unit of analysis, whereas embedded case
studies contains multiple units of analysis. This research used an embedded, multiple case study
design to gather content-rich data. Stakeholders at each location were interviewed about
influencing decisions on academic policies, programs, or practices in athletics. This interview
process allowed for a comparison of the interviews by stakeholder within each institution, and
subsequently across multiple institutions in an effort to find patterns and replication.
Unit of Analysis
The unit of analysis includes defining the case to be studied, individuals to be included
within the study, providing geographic boundaries, and developing specific propositions to
identity relevant information for the case; defining each of these helped to keep this study within
feasible limits (Yin, 1984). The primary units of analysis in this study were stakeholders who
were perceived to influence the decision-making of academic policies, programs, and practices in
college athletics. In the data collection process, the stakeholders selected for interviews were

44

narrowed in scope to include only those internal to the institution: alumni directors, athletic
directors, directors of admission, directors of Student-Athlete Support Services (SASS), faculty
senate chairs, Faculty Athletics Representatives (FARs), presidents, and provosts. The rationale
for choosing internal stakeholders was because their positions were closer to the decision-making
process and because they were accessible for interviews. Therefore, boosters and media were not
included in the data collection process. An additional unit of analysis focused on the process of
decision-making within institutions.
Including multiple units of analysis in this study allowed for an understanding of how
stakeholders perceived their influence in relation to other stakeholders on similar academic
decisions on policies, programs, and practices at different institutions. As part of these subunits
of analysis, collecting data on stakeholders’ perceptions also involved learning about the
relationships and interactions between stakeholders on decision-making about academics in
athletics.
In other words, the foreground of this study was an understanding of the relative amount
of stakeholder influence within the organizational context of higher education. The background
of the study was each institution, and how organizational structure, external and internal
circumstances, and opportunities for interaction and negotiation among stakeholders affected
stakeholders’ perceptions to more directly influence decisions on academic policies, programs
and practices. The process of selecting case sites and inviting stakeholders at each institution to
participate is identified below.
Sample and Site Selection
Selecting interviewees involved finding individuals willing to provide information
necessary for the purpose of the research (Johnson & Christensen, 2008). This method of

45

purposeful sampling is common to qualitative research in order to provide content-rich data
which will help answer the research question (Patton, 1990). Interviews were conducted with
several aforementioned stakeholders at each case site location. Each interviewee was identified
in the site selection process depending on time constraints and the availability of individuals
within each stakeholder group. This section discusses the criteria and site selection process,
followed by the procedures used to recruit interviewees.
Site selection.
The site locations selected for this study included a stratified purposeful sampling of
institutions based on several criteria. Stratified purposeful sampling allowed for identification of
a relatively small set of different cases to intensively study, with the purpose to “capture major
variations rather than to identify a common core. Each of the strata would constitute a fairly
homogeneous sample” (Patton, 1990, p. 174). Below, each of the criteria are identified and
defined, as well as a discussion of the rationale for using each of the criteria.
The criteria used to consider institutions for case site selection included major research
universities, academic performance as measured by the NCAA’s Academic Progress Rate
(APR), level of competition, athletic conference affiliation, institutional size, geography, and size
of total athletics budget. Estler and Nelson (2005) and Solow (1998) both noted that each of
these criteria may play a role in difference in perceptions of power and influence in decisionmaking, and at each institution with its own organizational dynamics, academics may have a
different influence in athletic decision-making as related to institutional mission. The first
criteria used, APR, identified those institutions which implemented APR academic improvement
plans for men’s basketball and football teams since 2005, the first year the NCAA implemented
the APR policy. Since that time, NCAA policy required its member institutions to submit

46

academic improvement plans for those teams failing to reach a benchmark score of 925. To
provide an understanding of what a 925 APR means, in 2010, the NCAA stated a 925 APR score
predicted a 50 percent graduation rate. The NCAA website was used to compile a list of
institutions which implemented academic improvement plans in men’s basketball and football
since 2005.
Subsequently, level of competition was considered for site selection. Level of
competition for this study was considered by the pressures and financial influences in major
college football programs, which are what scholars and journalists refer to as the “haves” and the
“have-nots” in the bifurcated model of major college sports (Knight Commission on
Intercollegiate Athletics, 2009). The “haves” are major research institutions that are members of
a NCAA Division I athletics conference whose regular season football champion received an
automatic bid to the football Bowl Championship Series (BCS). A bid to the BCS provides
lucrative financial rewards of more than $20 million to the athletic conference and significant
media attention to the institution as having one of the most successful major college football
teams in the country. The level of competition considered as a site selection for this study was
the “have-nots,” or those major research institutions that are members of an NCAA Division I
athletics conference whose regular season football champion did not receive an automatic bid to
the BCS, and thus fewer financial rewards and less significant levels of pressures. In its online
report, College Sports 101, the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics expressed the
impact of not being a member of a BCS-qualifying conference:
Most of the institutions in the “have” [BCS] conferences have historically been the most
prominent in their states or regions, enjoy deep and wide fan bases, and can command
television contracts, bowl-game agreements, and ticket prices to support vast enterprises.

47

The "have-not" [non-BCS] conferences tend to consist of newer, smaller, and more
regional institutions that lack these resources and opportunities. Nonetheless, their leaders
and constituents desire the visibility and the prestige associated with big-time college
sports, and must supplement the revenue they can generate from athletics with substantial
internal funds to “keep up with the Joneses” in the elite leagues. (Knight Commission on
Intercollegiate Athletics, 2009)
At the time of site selection for this study, this “have-not” level of competition criterion provided
a population of 52 out of a total of 120 institutions within Division I-FBS and from five different
athletic conferences.
Size of institution was also considered both in student undergraduate student numbers as
well as in athletic finances within the institution’s overall academic budget. Keeping similar
boundaries for the size of student population and financial impact of athletics within the
institution was expected to help ensure this study would gain information from individuals with
similar responsibilities who also have the most at stake (stakeholders) with respect to academic
decisions affecting athletics (Solow, 2008). Student population was determined using total
number of undergraduate full-time equivalent students and number of student-athletes on
scholarship, available from the U.S. Department of Education Office of Postsecondary
Education’s Equity in Athletics Data Analysis online database. Each of the institutions in the
selected sample enrolled between 15,000 and 25,000 undergraduates and had more than 300
student-athletes (USDOE, 2009). The aspect of athletic budgets that was used as a criterion was
the ratio of institutional spending in education and research per student compared to institutional
spending on athletics per athlete. This information was obtained from the Delta Project on
Postsecondary Education Costs, Productivity, and Accountability and from the Knight

48

Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics. The samples chosen had a similar ratio of the cost of
athletics per athlete compared to the cost of academics per undergraduate student: between 1.97
and 2.24 times greater for athletics per athlete than for academics per undergraduate student in
2008 (Delta Project on Postsecondary Education Costs, 2010).
Thus, the following criteria helped to identify several institutions for this study with
similar characteristics:
•

major research university;

•

institution implementing academic performance plans in men’s basketball and
football since 2005 based on poor academic performance as measured by the
NCAA’s Academic Progress Rate (APR);

•

undergraduate population;

•

number of students on athletic scholarship;

•

ratio of institutional spending in education and research per student compared to
institutional spending on athletics per athlete;

•

institutional membership in one of five “have-not” NCAA Division I athletic
conferences;

Subsequently, institutions were selected from different athletic conferences and different
regions of the country, with the expectation that significant themes relating to stakeholder
influence in decision-making would be found despite geographic differences. The three
institutions below were chosen from the final set based on the researcher’s financial ability to
travel to the region as well as the timing of the travel. While several additional institutions could
have been selected for further study, the data provided were sufficient after interviews were
conducted at the first three institutions.

49

Each institution was provided a pseudonym for anonymity: the pseudonyms are listed
below with the institution identified for research.
Midwestern University.
Midwestern University (MU) is a public institution located in the midwestern United
States and classified by the Carnegie Foundation as a university with high research activity. In
2010, MU had roughly 18,000 undergraduate and graduate students and participates in the
NCAA’s highest competitive division, Division I-Football Bowl Subdivision. Its athletics
department comprised of 17 sports teams with over 300 students receiving athletic scholarships.
Both its men’s basketball team and football team failed to reach a score of 925 for the NCAA’s
Academic Progress Rate (APR) at least once since the APR was instituted in 2005, thus requiring
MU to submit academic improvement plans for those teams for each year they failed to reach the
benchmark.
Southern State University.
Southern State University (SSU) is a public institution located in the southern United
States and was designated with a Carnegie classification as a university with high research
activity. In 2010, SSU enrolled roughly 15,000 undergraduate students and was also a member of
the most competitive division in the NCAA, Division I-Football Bowl Subdivision. Its athletics
program included 16 sports teams with over 350 students receiving athletic scholarships. The
APR for the SSU men’s basketball team was below 900 for three of the four years, and below
800 for the other year, of the data considered in the study; its football team APR was below 900
for two years in the study. SSU was required to submit academic improvement plans for those
teams for each year they failed to reach the benchmark.

50

Pacific Western University.
Pacific Western University (PWU) is a public institution located in a high-population
density, urban area in the western United States and was designated as a university with high
research activity. In 2010, PWU enrolled more than 20,000 undergraduate students and was also
a member of the most competitive division in the NCAA, Division I-Football Bowl Subdivision.
Its athletics program consisted of 16 sport teams, with more than 350 students who received an
athletic scholarship. PWU’s men’s basketball team and football team failed to reach a score of
900 for the APR for each of the four years in the study, thus requiring PWU to submit academic
improvement plans for those teams for each year they failed to reach the benchmark.
Stakeholder interviews.
For each site, a criterion sampling process was used to identify interviewees. Informants
were selected at each institution based on those stakeholders identified in the literature as most
likely to be involved with or have influence on academic decisions affecting student-athletes.
Based on the literature review and the reduction in the scope of stakeholders, a total of eight
individuals were identified as stakeholders at each of three institutions for a maximum of 24
potential interviews. The stakeholders selected for interviews were only those internal to the
institution: alumni directors, athletic directors, directors of admission, directors of StudentAthlete Support Services (SASS), faculty senate chairs, Faculty Athletics Representatives
(FARs), presidents, and provosts. Contact information was obtained from each institution’s
website. I contacted each stakeholder to schedule a face-to-face meeting at the location of their
choosing. Of the 24 requests for face-to-face interviews, a total of 16 were scheduled, with one
phone interview scheduled because a face-to-face meeting was not possible. The phone interview
was effective in collecting sensitive data (Borg, 1983); this is especially the case for individuals

51

considered in a position of power (Stephens, 2007), as was the person interviewed by phone in
this study. Follow-up e-mails and phone calls were made to those declining or not responding to
my inquiries, with each communication requesting a phone interview at the time and date of their
choosing. By the end of the inquiry process, the study was limited to 17 total interviews.
Data Collection
This section discusses the process of inviting stakeholders to participate in the study and
the process to collect the data. Notably, Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was obtained
prior to requesting documents, inviting prospective participants, and conducting interviews. I
first share the process used to collect and review documents. This follows with a discussion of
some of the potential assumptions and beliefs that may have influenced the design of the
interview process, the number of interviewees, how they were contacted, and the process of
collecting the interview data.
Documents were reviewed prior to travel to each case site location in order to “stimulate
thinking about important questions to pursue through more direct observations and interviewing”
(Merriam, 1998, p. 114). Documents analyzed included formal documents filed with the NCAA
(NCAA self-study reports, APR academic improvement programs), memorandums or other
institutional analyses, as well as campus and community newspapers. Documents were accessed
from the Internet and also requested from stakeholders and athletics departments. While
documents were not the primary source of data for this study, information from documents
helped to better understand which individuals were involved in athletic decision-making and how
they perceived they influenced the eventual decisions relating to academic policies, programs, or
practices.

52

I served as the instrument in qualitative research, but was cognizant of values, beliefs,
and assumptions brought to the study. One assumption was that each of the stakeholders
identified to interview for this study had attitudes or beliefs relating to college athletics and thus
had informed perspectives about their potential influence. Beliefs are concrete judgmental
concepts of a topic (college athletics) based on one’s knowledge, interest, and experiences
(Ajzen & Fishbein, 2005). Attitudes are evaluations of decisions about one’s beliefs reflective of
a topic and can change over time (Krosnick et. al, 1993). Furthermore, attitudes and beliefs are
components of persuasion which are important aspects of relationships that may affect influence
(Roskos-Ewoldsen, Arpan-Ralstin, & St. Pierre, 2002). An additional assumption was that there
was a relationship between perceived stakeholder influence and decisions of academic policy,
program, and practices in athletics. In other words, while stakeholders may have had perceptions
about the relative amount of influence on decisions about policy, practice, or programs, others
factors may have been more influential (such as institutional climate, state or federal regulations,
or NCAA policies).
I placed an initial phone call and e-mail to invite potential interviewees (as mentioned
above) to participate and requested dates available to meet for a face-to-face interview. Each
contact included formal written information (Appendix B) to arrive within a few days. The
formal written invitation included a request of dates available to meet for an interview, an
introduction to the study, the potential benefits of the study, and a request for written consent
(Appendix C). The written consent form included the purpose of the study, potential risks and
benefits from the study, the process of each interview, protection of privacy, contact information
of the researcher, and notation of IRB approval. Participants were informed of their rights and
instructions on how to withdraw from the study at any time.

53

An additional form (Appendix D), requesting descriptive information, was also sent to
each participant and obtained prior to each interview. The descriptive form included questions
about their job title, the length of tenure at their job and at their institution of employment, and
their specific interaction with the athletics department. After meeting times were established,
interviews were conducted at the location of the participant’s choosing at their institution. Semistructured interviews (Appendix A) were used to solicit open-ended responses to gain greater
understanding of perceptions, values, beliefs, and behaviors of each participant. Interviews were
recorded using computer software after approval from each participant; this allowed the
researcher to be more attentive and record visual observations. Each interview took
approximately one hour.
The 18 interviews succeeded in providing sufficient information throughout the process.
Themes became apparent and were identified through triangulation across the three case site
locations; thus, additional interviews were unnecessary.
Data Analysis
This study used a constant comparative method and a cross-case analysis to analyze
interview data within each site and to analyze interview data across all three sites. Each of the
recorded interviews was transcribed. During the transcription process, pseudonyms were given to
each institution and to each interviewee to protect identities. Subsequently, interviews were
analyzed for patterns and themes, and organized by specific cases and institutions. An emergent
design within qualitative data collection included analysis of the data as part and parcel of the
process of collecting the data. In other words, data from interviews were analyzed continuously
throughout the process to find emerging themes or patterns, and the emerging themes and
patterns were checked by including them within the context of the interview guide in subsequent

54

interviews. Analyzing data from case studies can “range from organizing a narrative description
of the phenomenon, to constructing categories or themes that cut across the data, to building
theory” (Merriam, 1998, p. 196). .
Data triangulation was used to find a theme or pattern in the data through the use of
multiple interviews (Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh, 2002; Mertens, 1998; Patton, 1990). In this study,
similar questions were asked of each interviewee relating to their perception of influence as it
related to other stakeholders about decisions relating to academic policies, practices, or programs
in athletics or on decision-making affecting student-athletes’ academic performance. As the
interview process evolved, patterns emerged that helped explain the perceived level of influence
of each stakeholder – the patterns strengthened as more interviews were conducted, particularly
in the second and third institutions in this study. Commonalities found between and among the
interviews created a pattern that helped to describe the relative amount of perceived influence
(Yin, 1994). A peer debriefing of the protocol, questions, findings, and patterns provided the
opportunity to discuss the data in a holistic context (Merriam, 1998), to help make meaning of
the data, and to confront my own values and attributes brought to the interviews (Mertens, 1998).
This study used an integrated case-oriented and variable-oriented strategy to help find
themes from the interviews. A context chart (Miles & Huberman, 1994) was created after
interviews at each institution to organize the impact and flow of decisions by stakeholders about
specific academic policies, programs, or practices impacting college athletics. This helped to
provide an understanding of the role of the structure of the institution in the perception of
influence in decision-making in athletics. In addition, cross-case analysis was used to consider
the most influential variables (Miles & Huberman, 1994). This helped to determine similarities
and differences in streams of data across cases. In this study, specific significant factors emerged

55

which affected the perceived influence of stakeholders on the decisions of academic policies,
programs, or practices in athletics and were isolated and matched to other cases with similar
policies, programs, or practices. Those data from interviews which conflicted or overlapped were
shared with a peer for feedback.
The data were partitioned into a matrix display based on institution and stakeholder role
group to generate explanations and understandings about the relative amount of perceived
influence among stakeholders (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Care was given to enter into the
matrix a thick level of data including the meanings, context, and intentions of each interview.
Key data and themes were identified and coded. Rules were created and recorded to make
decisions on which chunks of data from the interviews were placed into the matrix. Data were
filled into the matrix early in the analysis. The matrix and the record of rules were shared with
two colleagues for feedback and adjustments were made, as necessary, to assist in developing
clear understandings and conclusions.
Trustworthiness
Ensuring the quality, or trustworthiness, of research in case studies is essential to ensure
that the researcher and others have confidence in the process of the investigation and its results
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Merriam, 1998). The use of triangulation, explanation-building, and
peer debriefing helped to enhance the validity and reliability of the results in this study
(Merriam, 1998; Mertens, 1998; Yin, 1984). To ensure accuracy, each interviewee was asked
how they would like to receive a draft copy of the data, and the data was provided as requested to
each interviewee for their response (Yin, 1984).

56

Confidentiality was ensured through the aforementioned use of anonymity, coding of
responses, and storing data separately from demographic information. Before collecting any data,
consent was obtained by Michigan State University’s Institutional Review Board.
Summary
This chapter presented the constructivist approach and qualitative methods used in this
study. Methods included an embedded multiple case-study design, semi-structured interviews,
and document analysis. Also discussed were the participant and site selection process and
interview procedures used to gather data. The process of ensuring trustworthiness and
confidentiality were documented. Analyzing the data through an integrated, synthesized, and
cross-case strategy was also discussed. The next chapter describes the results from the
interviews.

57

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
Three different four-year institutions of higher education in America were selected as
sites to conduct interviews. Five interviews were conducted at one location, and six at two other
locations. Below are the findings from the interviews which helped to answer the research
questions. The findings are provided in order from the first site in which interviews were
conducted (Midwestern University), followed by the second site (Southern State University), and
concluding with the third site (Pacific Western University). The table below provides the names
and titles of individuals who were interviewed at each institution.

Table 1. Names and titles of interviewees and their site affiliations
Midwestern

Alumni Director

Pacific Western

University
Admissions Director

Southern State
University

University

Denny

Pete

Greg
Mandy

Athletic Director
Faculty Athletics Representative

Stan
Len

President

Cindy

Ben

Richard

Faculty Senate Chair

Ann

Mark

Sean

Darryl

Provost
Student-Athlete Support Services

Gene
Mike

(SASS) Director or Assistant

58

Dart

Emily

Midwestern University
In 2010, when interviews for this study were conducted, Midwestern University (MU)
was a public institution located in the midwestern United States and classified by the Carnegie
Foundation as a university with high research activity. MU had roughly 18,000 enrolled
undergraduate and graduate students and participated in the NCAA’s highest competitive
division, Division I-Football Bowl Subdivision. Its athletics department comprised of 17 sports
teams, with more than 300 students receiving athletic scholarships.
The President and the Athletic Director were notified by the NCAA in 2010 that their
men’s basketball team failed to reach a score of 925 for the NCAA’s Academic Progress Rate
(APR). This was significant because failure to meet the 925 benchmark required MU to take
action to improve its score to be in compliance or to potentially suffer penalties. As point of
reference, in 2010, the NCAA stated a 925 APR score approximately predicted a 50 percent
graduation rate. One of the actions required by failing to meet this 925 score was for institutions
to submit academic improvement plans for those teams in noncompliance.
Several academic policies, programs, and practices at MU relevant to athletics were
identified to learn how stakeholders perceived certain situations were handled on campus and
who they believed influenced the decisions and directions of these situations. Situations
identified at MU as relevant to this study included policies on how to handle missed assignments
for traveling student-athletes, decisions on how to handle student-athletes who may be less
academically prepared to enter MU, and the class choices of student-athletes. Each of these
programs, policies, and decisions also had the potential to affect APR scores and graduation
rates.

59

The President of MU, Cindy, had served in her capacity at Midwestern University for a
little over three years at the time of the interviews for this study. The President was directly
informed of academic issues, including those affecting athletics, by individuals who served on
her cabinet. The cabinet included the Chief Human Resources Officer, the Chief
Communications Officer, the Athletic Director (AD), and five vice presidents: Vice President for
Student Affairs; Vice President for University Advancement; C.F.O. and Vice President for
Finance & Administration; Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs & Provost, and the Vice
President for Legal Affairs and Governmental Relations. Through this structure, the President
provided each member of the cabinet with direct input in senior-level discussions relating to their
own department as well as to other departments on campus. This organizational model placed
academic issues in the same reporting structure as athletics and as other departments and other
areas on campus.
The President’s cabinet met on a weekly basis, with each member expected to contribute
for the welfare of the institution, whether within or external to their assigned area of control.
These cabinet-level meetings provided an opportunity to share information and ideas with the
President, and were also places where cabinet members were “invited to engage in helping to
craft a solution” impactful of other areas of campus beyond their immediate department. The
President noted these forums helped her gather information and direct individuals to gather data
to make informed decisions. Cindy stated, “I’m regarded as somebody who wants information
and who is not going to conclusions without the data.”
The Athletic Director reported directly to the President, and the two conversed on a
weekly basis. Reporting directly to the President was a means for greater presidential oversight
of athletics decisions at MU. Westmeyer (1990) noted that “at nationally reputed football,

60

basketball, or baseball teams… the President is more likely to retain closer control by having the
Athletic Director report directly to him” (p. 67). Also as stated by Cindy, “We meet on a regular
basis, the AD and I, to share information and discuss issues, and he joins us weekly at the
president’s cabinet where I expect him not just to be the Athletic Director, but to be an officer of
the university and to be thinking about the strategic issues that we’re talking about whether
they’re in his portfolio or not.”
Midwestern University was organized through a committee structure, which provided an
opportunity for administrators across campus to discuss issues and to potentially impact
decisions. This was particularly true with academic decisions affecting athletics, in which several
individuals – identified within this study as stakeholders – worked on committees to respond to
particular issues. For example, the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee (IAC) met on a monthly
basis to review and to make recommendations on athletics policy, including academic policies
that may affect athletics. The IAC is a requirement of NCAA policy, which stipulates some
faculty or academic oversight of the athletics department. The IAC membership at MU was
similar to membership on most NCAA Division I campuses: eight faculty members appointed by
the Faculty Senate, undergraduate and graduate student body representatives, and five
administrators including the Associate Vice President of Student Affairs, the Athletic Director,
the Director of the School of Health, Physical Education and Recreation, the Faculty Athletics
Representative (FAR), and the University Registrar.
The IAC had an Institutional Athletics Compliance Committee (Committee) that “serves
in an advisory capacity” to the Student Athlete Support Services (SASS) Director. The
Committee consisted of: the FAR, the SASS Director, the Chief Admissions Officer, and senior
staff from the Office of Financial Aid and the Office of the Registrar. Much of the work of the

61

Committee was directed through the SASS Director or the FAR who were made aware of
academic issues as they interacted with student-athletes, coaches, and various stakeholders on
campus. The Committee reviewed and made suggestions on various athletics programs, policies,
or issues, including: the orientation of freshmen or transfer student-athletes; the process of
monitoring the academic progress of student-athletes; academic support and scholarship
programs for student-athletes; learning assistance and assessment of at-risk student-athletes or
student-athletes with special needs; and, academic advising for student-athletes, such as study
skills, mentoring, tutoring, study hall facilities, and resources.
A Faculty Athletics Representative (FAR) is required of each NCAA-member institution
to serve as a liaison between the institution and the athletics department, and also as a
representative of the institution in conference and NCAA affairs: “a member institution shall
designate an individual to serve as faculty athletics representative. An individual… shall be a
member of the institution’s faculty or an administrator who holds faculty rank and shall not hold
an administrative or coaching position in the athletics department” (NCAA, 2009b, p. 443). Len,
the FAR at MU, had served as a faculty member for more than 30 years and as an FAR for more
than 13 years. He had several responsibilities, which included reviewing every student-athlete’s
academic eligibility requirements, communicating directly with coaches and student-athletes,
and approving initial admissions criteria. Len’s role was both proactive and responsive: proactive
in that Len’s experiences and knowledge gave him the ability to initiate discussions on policies,
practices, or programs before any issues or concerns arose; and, responsive as the individual to
whom stakeholders first turned with respect to more immediate or identified issues of the
athletics department. Len stated as much: “having been here a long time, I think they ask me for
experiential information.” Gary, the Chief Admissions Officer, stated “[the FAR] essentially is

62

tying the world of athletics to the world of academics… and he’s been here a long time. I mean
he’s like a 35-year faculty member that everybody knows.”
In his capacity as FAR, Len was provided a direct line of communication with Cindy, the
President, through which they both regularly communicated. According to Len, “I meet regularly
with the President… and I try to get some face-to-face time at least once a term.” About Len,
Cindy stated, “he has direct access to me if he calls and says he needs to see me, it’s
accommodated as quickly as possible.” Len concurred: “[The President] said, ‘If... if Len calls,
put him on the schedule and get him in as soon as you can.’” Cindy understood the high
visibility of athletics, and used her relationship with Len to be appraised regularly about the
status of academic performance in athletics. Cindy noted her relationship with Len was
important, “because athletes tend to get more visibility in the press.”
The remainder of this section presents several decisions and events that were useful in
understanding stakeholder influence on academic decisions affecting athletics at MU.
Academic improvement plans.
In spring 2010, the President and the Athletic Director of MU were notified by the
NCAA that the men’s basketball team would receive an APR score below the NCAA’s 925
benchmark. Cindy, the President, said, “I do know the basketball coach was very concerned
about [poor APR scores] and understood the need to address it. That was communicated to me.”
As part of the notification, NCAA policy required institutions to create an academic
improvement plan for the team to improve its academic performance. MU administrators and
other stakeholders involved with athletics decisions had previous experience creating academic
improvement plans for its football team and its men’s soccer team, so they understood the
process.

63

Each of the stakeholders interviewed in the study stated their confidence in the Athletics
Department leading the effort to design and implement academic improvement plans because of
its previous success in raising the football team’s APR score above 925 only one year after it
missed the benchmark. Cindy said, “I have confidence in the Athletics Director that I didn't need,
basically, to say prove it.” With respect to improving the academic performance of the men’s
basketball team, Cindy and other stakeholders believed the structure, and the people with the
knowledge, were in place to best respond with academic improvement plans. Cindy said, “I think
there are good procedures in place and that people have very, very high regard for the Faculty
Athletics Representative and for staff who are focused on the academic support for the studentathletes.” Mike, the Assistant Athletic Director for Compliance and Director of Student Athlete
Support Services (SASS), stated: “Besides myself as the kind of the final stop or the authority, I
guess our athletic director would be the last stop, but I'm a senior administrator, looked at to
develop, to create, various policy with input from coaches or other staff... but I am looked at as
the expert on that subject.”
The Athletic Director leaned on Mike to draft an academic improvement plan based on
information gathered by the Compliance Director within athletics. The Compliance Director in
athletics led an effort in which Mike and the athletic coaches identified several reasons for the
low APR score of the men’s basketball team. Mike said, “I was at the table, though. I was there
to talk about what I saw the problems were... whether it be the eligibility or the retention number.
The coach was at the table. The sport administration staff... an assistant coach or two was there.
It was a starting point to say, okay, well, we're losing points. What are the problems?” The
following reasons for a low APR score of the men’s basketball team were listed in the academic
improvement plans: failure of student-athletes to use available academic support services;

64

unexcused missed classed time; and, student-athletes voluntarily leaving the team and not
continuing their academic work, which resulted in a loss of APR points.
Based upon the information, Mike created the academic improvement plans for men’s
basketball and shared them for review and input by Len, the FAR. Len said, “before [the
academic improvement plan] is submitted, I review it, make suggestions about language, ‘is this
realistic?’” After Len’s input, the improvement plans were presented to a committee that
reported to the IAC. Mike said: “we had a committee that was made up of some [folks external
to the athletics department], person in the registrar's office, person in the admissions office, and a
person in financial aid who once the document was done, and all the athletics entities had their
say, it was ‘Okay this is our plan, these were the problems is what we're gonna do.’ They kind of
just blessed it.” The improvement plans were then presented to the Athletic Director to approve
and to implement.
The role of University Program for Academic Success (UPAS).
At MU, an initiative that emerged as an important example of stakeholder influence on
academic decisions was that of the enhanced use of the University Program for Academic
Success (UPAS). The UPAS program provided individualized academic support to any student
(athlete or non-athlete) on campus with below a 2.5 GPA, including “tutoring, extensive
academic advising, carefully selected courses, and participation in a bridge experience. You are
also assigned an advisor who meets with you regularly to track your academic progress” (MU
website, 2011). Mike, as a stakeholder closely aligned with the academic performance of
student-athletes, recommended a policy that would require an academic mentoring/tutoring
program for freshman and at-risk student-athletes, and for all men’s basketball players with
below a 2.5 cumulative GPA, to enroll in the University Program for Academic Success (UPAS)

65

program. His recommendation was predicated on the belief that the UPAS program would
improve student-athletes’ academic performance to surpass the APR 925 benchmark. This step
was listed by Mike in the men’s basketball academic improvement plan submitted to the NCAA.
The recommendation stated, “to use existing university academic support services, including but
not limited to the University writing center, math and stats tutoring center, and study skills
center.”
Special admissions.
Additionally, to accommodate student-athlete recruits who may be perceived as
academically underprepared (or less prepared) or do not meet MU’s minimum academic
requirements, a group of individuals from across the campus were involved in a special
admission process. If a student-athlete did not meet the minimum requirements, a “waiver” of the
requirements was required to be filed. Mike helped direct the process of whether or not to
formally request a “waiver” of the admission requirements, which would have to be approved by
Greg, the Chief Admissions Officer. At MU, this happened a few times per year within all of
athletics. As part of the special admissions process, Mike would discuss the recruit’s academic
credentials with the coach of the team and listen to a rationale for admission. Mike stated, “We
talk with the coach and say, ‘Okay okay this person's close. What do you feel like we can do or
do we still really want this person?’”
Mike also reviewed initial NCAA eligibility data with Len, the Faculty Athletics
Representative (FAR), for his input about a recruited student-athlete’s academic performance.
Len is involved because institutional (and NCAA) policy requires an FAR to sign all admissions
approval forms. Len said, “that information is gonna be part of the [admissions] waiver, and then
I determine whether or not I feel comfortable signing off on that.” Mike noted that the

66

credentials may lead to a special admissions request, but there would be no pressure to approve
the request if the student-athlete could not succeed. Mike said, “We're given information that this
student is close, and we request consideration; it's never us that says, you know, this person
needs to be admitted.” Rarely was there a case when a coach would circumvent the relationship
between Mike and Len to request a special admissions waiver. If there was a consensus between
Mike and Len that the student-athlete could not academically succeed at MU, either Mike, Len,
or the Athletic Director would inform the coach that the recruit would be denied admissions.
Mike stated “if this person's not gonna be a qualifier then the coach is gonna be advised by
myself, by our athletic director, or our sport administrator, that we should probably step away
from this kid.” Otherwise, if it was determined the recruited student-athlete could succeed
academically, there would be a formal request to admit the recruited student-athlete; the request
would be made to Greg, the Chief Admissions Officer.
When necessary, Greg met with Mike and Len to discuss special admissions requests.
Because requests for special admissions were made to him as Chief Admissions Officer, Greg
perceived he had important influence over decisions that affected student-athletes who lacked
minimum admissions standards. In referring to his role in the special admissions piece of the
overall improvement plan, Greg observed, “I guess had I sought to adjust or make changes to the
plan, I think I would carry more than the average amount of weight.” Len noted that Greg is
“sort of athletics-friendly, but he’s not going to let them stomp on him.” Furthermore, Greg said,
“you have your coaches that tend to find us and tend to go right to the top,” which referred to his
ability to influence decisions because some coaches decided to engage directly with him instead
of those coaches respecting the formal special admissions process. Thus, Greg had significant
authority on admissions decisions at MU. However, once the students were admitted to campus,

67

Greg perceived his influence was moot. After admission, freshmen student-athletes were
enrolled in the UPAS program, and from that point forward other campus administrators on
campus were more influential in academic decisions affecting these student-athletes.
2010 missed assignment policy.
Also in 2010, an institution-wide policy was created to rectify situations in which
students representing MU and involved in extracurricular activities (including athletics) did not
have the opportunity to complete assignments in as equitable of a manner as other students.
Mike, the Assistant Athletic Director for Compliance and SASS Director, received concerns
directly from student-athletes about an inability to make up missed assignments in the same vein
as non-athlete students. He was direct about the need to create a policy on missed assignments
that took into account the issues of student-athletes. “I’m the one who through meetings with
student-athletes, with discussions with my own academic staff, have found probably two to three
years ago, well, maybe two years, that there’s a definite need.” Mike noted his work directly
with faculty on missed assignment policies due to student-athletes’ travel. As an example, he
said, “we’re gonna work with the Math department in terms of student-athletes who have to
travel and they’re gone. I mean, we’ve had student-athletes who are on national TV with the
institution are kind of penalized in that, ‘well you know, they missed the common exam.’”
Mike brought this issue to the attention of both Len and the Athletic Director. As the
FAR, Len was able to provide input and he reviewed the issue. According to Len, “I’m there and
I have my input, having worked with athletics, you know, for thirteen years now, as to whether
this is a good idea, bad idea.” Mike also used his professional experiences and contacts external
to the institution to develop an understanding of how similar situations were handled at other
institutions, which helped him to draft a potential strategy. Mike explained the process in this

68

way: “We try to work with campus officials to create something that’s beneficial and protective,
I guess, so the anecdotal stuff lines up. We say that we need something and we look for best
practices, we come up with kind of a draft then of what we want and then it becomes with
whatever people that need to be around the table come together, look at it, here’s what we’ve
got.” Mike brought the issue and a potential solution before the Intercollegiate Athletics
Committee (IAC), at which Len was also present. The Provost was also made aware of the issue
by the Athletic Director. The Provost suggested to Len and the Chair of the Academic Affairs
Committee of the Faculty Senate of the need for “faculty having some codified requirement to
provide other opportunities to make up work.” The IAC presented the solution to MU’s Faculty
Senate, which adopted it as academic policy.
Cindy, the President, was informed of faculty not following Midwestern University’s
policy of permitting students equal opportunity to make up assignments. This issue was raised
with her because it pertained to all extracurricular students, both student-athletes and nonathletes, who participated in student organizations. She learned of the issue in separate meetings,
first from the Provost, then from the Vice President of Student Affairs. Subsequently, Len
brought the issue to Cindy’s attention. Len said, “I did mention this to the President this fall
when I talked to her and she said, ‘Yeah, I’m supportive of what the Provost is doing in an effort
to get that language into the… the sort of code of conduct for faculty.’” Cindy noted the need to
follow process and academic policy: “looking at anything academic and then it belongs in the
Provost’s office.” She gave the Provost the authority to make the final decision, and the Provost
decided to be consistent in applying the policy to all students, including student-athletes. Cindy
then reached out to the Provost and the Vice President of Student Affairs to resolve the issue.
She said, “that becomes an issue for the Provost, talking with the deans and the chairs about ‘we

69

need to be following our policy,’ so when I say I can’t tell you it’s been resolved, it’s a
persuasion thing rather than writing a new rule.”
SASS and academic eligibility.
The purpose of Student Athlete Support Services (SASS) at MU was to assist studentathletes in their lives outside of the athletics arena. The services included academic monitoring,
tutorial assistance, monitored study tables, and building skills to develop and pursue career and
life goals. Mike, the Director of SASS, had knowledge and experience which were noted by
several stakeholders as important at Midwestern University to maintain academic integrity of the
athletics program. Cindy said, “People have very, very high regard for the FAR and for the staff
who are focused on the academic support for the student athletes.” Mike understood and shared
this perception. He said, “[SASS] is kind of the go-to person in instances where student athletes
are requesting, help, advice, just kind of monitoring in general.”
Before adding to his role as director of SASS, Mike served solely as the Assistant
Athletics Director for Compliance, which was responsible for the institution’s compliance with
NCAA rules, including student-athletes’ meeting initial admissions requirements and tracking
and reporting the academic progress, retention, and eligibility of student-athletes. Thus, he had
direct access to academic performance data of all student-athletes and was able to anticipate the
Academic Progress Rate (APR) for athletics teams. As either director of SASS or working in
athletics compliance, Mike’s positions were essentially more pragmatic in the sense that he,
greater than most administrators on campus, was closer to the student-athletes. In other words,
Mike had greater knowledge of the specific academic and non-academic needs of studentathletes than most other administrators on campus. Mike was constantly in discussions with

70

student-athletes, and their coaches, about eligibility based on progress toward graduation and
their class choices.
One of the systems that Mike oversaw as both SASS and athletics compliance director
was monitoring the eligibility of student-athletes; he took a particular focus on those studentathletes who were at-risk academically. Mike initiated a system to regularly track the academic
progress of student-athletes throughout the academic year. He said, “[the student tracking
system] was something that was loosely structured. I brought it, made it more defined, and it’s
not a written-in-stone policy.” As part of tracking student-athletes’ academic performance, Mike
often engaged directly with student-athletes about their decisions to take a course. He would let
them know if a course was more challenging than their current grade point average (GPA)
indicated and if the potential grade from the course would be detrimental to their progress toward
graduation, and thus jeopardize their athletic eligibility under NCAA rules. Mike said, “I would
advise a student on a major if they have a 2.1 GPA and you need a 2.75 or 2.5 to matriculate. Is
this… is this a realistic thing?” Or, if the time a course was scheduled conflicted with a studentathlete’s practice time, Mike would help inform the student-athlete and the coach of the conflict.
He said, “if a student comes in, they’re a technology major, and there’s only one tech section
that’s right in the middle of whatever practice, that the coaches here... the staff... they just realize
that there’s no other option.” In other words, Mike would meet with both the student-athlete and
the coach about the need to come to a mutual agreement and resolve the conflicting timing of
specific courses and athletic practices.
Mike was not alone in tracking student-athletes’ academic status. Len’s duties as FAR
included reviewing every student-athlete’s academic eligibility and talking with professors on
behalf of coaches and student-athletes if there was a perceived or a real academic concern. Len’s

71

proactive nature in fulfilling his duties was demonstrated by his willingness to review academic
eligibility requirements: “I know that there are FARs that don’t examine every student-athlete’s
record, but I feel more comfortable doing that.”
Summary.
As a case site, MU provided a useful opportunity to learn about specific academic issues
and those stakeholders who were most influential. More specifically, the issues used to
investigate stakeholder influence related to missed assignments for traveling student-athletes,
decisions on how to handle student-athletes who may be less academically prepared to enter MU,
and how student-athletes chose their classes. The SASS Director and the FAR were the most
influential in decisions relating to missed assignments and the course selection processes. In
addition, the Director of Admissions proved to be significantly influential in special admissions
decisions. While the President’s influence seemingly was less significant, this may have related
to her role in MU’s climate and culture. Investigating these situations provided an opportunity to
also understand how stakeholders perceived they influenced decisions. Understanding their
perceptions helped to form a sense of reality of the environment of decision-making at MU.
Southern State University
In 2010, Southern State University (SSU) was a public institution with roughly 15,000
enrolled undergraduate students and was designated with a Carnegie classification as a university
with high research activity. SSU was also a member of the most competitive division in the
NCAA, Division I-Football Bowl Subdivision. Its athletics program comprised of 16 teams with
more than 300 students on athletic scholarship.
The organization of SSU was led by the President’s cabinet, which included five vice
presidents (University Advancement, Enrollment Management, Student Affairs, Administration

72

& Finance, Research) and the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs. Each of the Vice
Presidents reported to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs. Not serving on the
cabinet, but reporting directly to the President, were the Athletic Director (AD), the Assistant
Director for Athletics Compliance, a representative of the University Athletics Council (UAC),
and the Internal Auditor. Other individuals with direct reporting to the President included the
Director of Governmental Relations, the Assistant for Campus Diversity and Community
Outreach, and several other presidential assistants.
Sean, SSU’s President, stated that “the Assistant Director for Athletics Compliance has
direct authority and reports to the President on issues related to NCAA compliance.” In effect,
this structure, with the Athletic Director and compliance director reporting directly to the
President, was intended to help put greater presidential control over athletics decisions, while
also providing seemingly better alignment of academic performance within athletics to the
institution’s academic mission.
The UAC was “a group that reports directly to the President and acted in an advisory
capacity on all athletics issues.” The individuals involved in the UAC were appointed directly by
the President. The UAC was actively involved in making recommendations to the President on
matters of budget, new athletics initiatives, compliance, eligibility, academics, and
communication. The UAC worked directly with the Athletic Director and Student-Athlete
Support Services (SASS). Ann, who had for the previous decade served as a member of the
UAC, was also appointed by the President to serve as SSU’s Faculty Athletics Representative
(FAR). In her role as FAR, she also continued to serve on the UAC. At SSU, SASS helped to
meet the academic needs of student-athletes; this unit is common among universities who

73

participate in NCAA Division I. The Director of SASS reported directly to the Provost and
Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs, and not to the Athletic Director.
Since 2006, SSU encountered several high profile administrative changes, including a
new President (Sean), two new Athletic Directors (including the recent promotion of Stan; when
interviewed for this study, Stan served as the Senior Associate Athletics Director), and several
new head coaches for its athletic teams.
In 2007, the NCAA announced that SSU’s men’s basketball and football teams would be
penalized with a loss of scholarships, reduced practice time, forfeiture of games and any
championship tournament revenue, and other probationary measures for “a failure to monitor its
football and men's basketball programs” during the 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 academic years.
As a result, the penalties impacted the APR scores of the SSU football and men’s basketball
teams in each year between 2006 and 2008. In each of those years, the men’s basketball teams at
SSU scored below 900, and in two of those years, the football teams at SSU scored below 900.
The scores were significantly below the NCAA’s Academic Progress Rate (APR) benchmark of
925, for which the institution also incurred penalties. The sub-900 APR scores at SSU, the
replacement of several administrators (including two stakeholders with long tenures at SSU), and
the resulting decisions affecting the athletic program made SSU useful to investigate with respect
to academic decision-making and policies within intercollegiate athletics.
Below are decisions at SSU about programs, policies, and practices which influenced
subsequent decisions by stakeholders. The first issue discussed is how stakeholders perceived
their influence on decisions to create academic improvement plans for the football and men’s
basketball teams.

74

NCAA probation and academic improvement plans.
Before his arrival in late 2007, Sean, the President, acknowledged that the institution
understood the need to prioritize improvement of APR and NCAA rules compliance for its men’s
basketball and football teams. Sean said, “Much of it began prior to me getting here when there
were poor APR results.” With respect to men’s basketball, the NCAA ruled a SSU studentathlete violated NCAA eligibility requirements by taking correspondence courses to maintain
adequate progress to graduation. An NCAA press release stated: “the school's compliance
coordinator at the time, as well as the Director of Academic Services and the Registrar, all ‘failed
to catch the obvious error.’” In football, coaching staff violated NCAA rules by having
“occasionally observed workouts, provided skill training, and tracked student-athlete attendance
in the summer conditioning program.”
The NCAA ruled a loss of scholarships (two in both sports in violation), reduced practice
time, and other probationary measures for violating the NCAA’s policies relating to eligibility,
academic integrity, and other athletics practice regulations. As stated in SSU’s 2008 self-study to
the NCAA: “In 2007, [SSU] was penalized by the [NCAA] Committee on Infractions for major
and secondary violations in the football and men’s basketball programs. The penalties, both selfimposed and NCAA-imposed, impacted the area of rules compliance.” In the 2008 academic
year, SSU submitted an athletics certification document to the NCAA (also known as a “selfstudy”), required of each NCAA member institution every 10 years. Although no program has
been decertified in the NCAA’s history, the document provided an opportunity to review the
alignment of athletics within the mission of SSU, as well as procedures and policies required to
comply with NCAA rules and regulations. The NCAA self-study included responses to concerns
about policies, programs, and practices that may affect athletics. In its response to the penalties,

75

SSU created an academic advisory committee appointed by the University Athletic Committee
(UAC) to help understand each teams’ deficiencies leading to the poor APR scores, to provide
recommendations for improvement, and to propose expectations that were written into the
academic improvement plan. Ann, the FAR who served on the committee, said, “[The provost]
asked for the involvement with writing the academic improvement plans, not just, you know
checking up on them. Let's have that person [me, the FAR,] there with the coach at the time so
that there's that face-to-face.” Sean, the President, noted the contributions of the academic
advisory committee in his conversations with athletic staff at the beginning of each academic
year: “I also make sure we go through the expectations of the academic advisory committee.”
After the committee completed its recommendations for the plan, the Athletic Director either
adopted and implemented it, or requested changes before implementation. Stan said: “so those
three people would get together with the head coach and come up with the improvement plan
that they would bring forward for us to look at, for us to finally approve.”
As part of the academic improvement plan, members of the UAC were assigned to
football or men’s basketball teams and regularly communicated with that sport team’s head
coach. Ann discussed the periodic nature of implementing the improvement plan each term,
saying, “you follow up on that plan twice a semester with the coach, you know, ‘how are things
going? Are you meeting these goals?’” All of the information on student-athletes obtained by
Ann and the Assistant Athletic Director for Compliance was considered an additional check to
hold coaches accountable for the academic performance of their teams. Dart, the Director of
Student-Athlete Support Services (SASS), also shared his perspective on the effectiveness of the
communication between UAC and athletic team head coaches. He said, “every sport is assigned
someone from the athletic committee to work with them, you know, to talk to the coach if there

76

are concerns... so that the faculty rep is the person that calls the coach and says, ‘hey look, we
just noticed that your kids are not doing what they need to do.’”
One of the improvements noted in SSU’s self-study was to have “regularly scheduled
monthly meetings, which were mandatory for all athletics staff and non-athletics personnel with
athletics rules-compliance responsibilities.” The idea of having more deliberate conversations
and open communications about academic performance of student-athletes was to educate
coaches and administrators on academic eligibility and compliance issues, including a better
understanding of the NCAA’s APR. Ann recounted, “first of all, we were all educated on what
APR was, by the Compliance Officer. She gives us updates throughout the year based on her
calculations.” Sean also discussed the process of sharing information on NCAA rules in his
position as president: “I meet with the athletics department staff… including all the coaches, at
the beginning of the year, and [we require it as a] NCAA meeting to remind them of the rules.”
By 2009, an article in the local newspaper quoted Stan talking about the success of the
academic improvement plan. He said, “We don't face any penalties this year because we met the
waiver requirements. In layman's terms, the NCAA has said that we submitted an academic
improvement plan and met it.”
Academic coaches program.
Another strategy used at SSU to respond to poor APR scores was the creation of an
“academic coaches program,” in which specific individuals (“academic coaches”) were hired to
work one-on-one with athletes identified as at-risk academically. Ann, the FAR noted this direct
assistance was identified as more effective than “going to study hall for X amount of hours and
tutoring… We started off right away, putting [academically at-risk student-athletes] in the
academic coaches program.” Academic coaches received a better understanding of potential

77

academic issues because they were engaged directly with the content assigned by instructors; this
understanding helped SASS and athletics compliance staff identify student-athletes who might
be at-risk with certain courses, thus giving an opportunity to provide assistance before academic
concerns impacted athletic eligibility. Ann said, “because we know we need to watch out for
them so the student-athlete academic office and the coaches together define who are at risk.”
Sean, the President, said, “I responded by providing the resources for [academic
coaches]." Dart concurred on the importance of increased resources: “We hired two academic
coaches, split those kids up, and each had three, and the results at the end of the day were... were
resounding.”
Keeping athletes eligible.
Several stakeholders shared concerns about keeping athletes eligible to improve APR
scores. A variety of efforts were used to improve academic performance, including database
management, providing resources and tutors in academic support, and engaging and
communicating with faculty to improve the understanding and appreciation of the unique needs
of student-athletes. SSU’s self-study report to the NCAA noted that its database management
was deficient in the ability to track the academic performance of student-athletes with respect to
the institution’s scholarship office’s database systems. The self-study stated: “the feasibility of
merging the [multiple] systems should be examined and a recommendation made to the
President.” Ann, the FAR, became a point person to create a new database, particularly after she
found it difficult to understand the information from the previous system. She said, “I wasn't
happy with it. I thought the results were hard to read. I just didn't feel like they gave us what I
wanted to know from these student-athletes.” Stan, the Senior Associate Athletic Director,
recognized that the Athletics Department needed to provide the funding to help implement the

78

database system. Ann noted, “The [AD] said, ‘I can pay for this. You know, I can do this.’ So
that's being pretty involved in that part of it, you know, he was concerned just like we were
concerned.”
In addition to providing funding for a better student-athlete data system, Stan understood
that athletics needed to provide greater funding to SASS in order for it to be more successful in
improving APR scores. He said, “We rely on them [SASS] extremely heavily, to get us that
information, so we can again, make some budgeting decisions, that is best for the student-athlete
and best for the APR.” The work and the collaboration between the Athletics Department and
SASS were extensive and critical to ensuring athletes remained eligible. If a student-athlete was
not eligible, Stan tried to understand what happened: “'I want to know why. Why did we think
this person was not eligible? You know, what class did you think counted, that at the end didn't
count?” It was clear that many stakeholders were actively engaged individually and with each
other trying to support student-athletes and help them remain eligible to play.
Faculty-athletics interaction and conflict resolution.
Stan, the Senior Associate Athletic Director, believed the interaction between athletics
and the faculty was critical to successful academic performance of student-athletes. Stan said, “I
can tell you right now, I’ve also seen the success of the philosophy, ‘get involved.’ Get involved,
understand what they do.” Stan went further on this point, noting how increased involvement and
communication could alleviate the tension between athletics and faculty at SSU: “The more we
get to know them, the more they get to know us, and that helps bring down those fences. It helps
alleviate those stereotypes on both sides.”
The need to improve communication between faculty and athletics was also noted in
SSU’s self-study report to the NCAA. The NCAA recommended a policy be adopted to

79

minimize conflicts between scheduling of athletics competition and missed class time. The
policy “instituted by the University specifies the allowable number of classes that a studentathlete may miss because of competition. Additionally, the Athletics Department does not permit
competition during Study Day or final exams” (SSU Athletics Department, 2008). Coaches were
warned not to create a practice schedule that conflicted with courses. Any exception was
required to be approved by the Athletic Director and the UAC. Ann, the FAR, noted how Stan,
the Senior Associate Athletic Director, would reprimand a coach for not prioritizing academics
in his decision-making. She said: “but scheduling could have been done better, we thought, and
[Stan] went back to this coach and said, ‘Look, it was approved because you're within our
guidelines… But don't do this again.’” Stan had conversations with faculty to inform them about
the rationale behind some of the scheduling issues for student-athletes. He said, “Sometimes
there are conference games and we don’t have any input on them. So, that was an education back
to [the Dean], but it was good checks and balances to be able to say, yeah, you know, we are
doing those things. That was that conversation.”
As the individual on the front lines providing tools for student-athletes to succeed in the
classroom, SASS Director Dart was blunt about the input he received from coaches and faculty.
The requests he received from coaches and faculty impacted the advice he provided to studentathletes to ensure they remained academically eligible and able to participate in their sport. He
said, “You’re ready to go into your spring semester and you’ve got several of your kids who are
in class at two o’clock. Football coach is upset. Basketball coach is upset. Now all of our coaches
would pretty much have a problem if they’re… if the kids were in classes that late. So what our
concern was is always... put them in classes, get them in classes that won’t conflict.”

80

At times, there were significant conflicts between the student-athletes’ desire to reach
their academic goals and passions, and their ability to play their sport and remain on scholarship.
The student-athlete may have to choose between being a student first or an athlete first, with
most frequently choosing athlete. Using a nursing major as an example, Dart said, “Most often,
what will happen in a situation like that, is... is the student-athlete is faced with making a.... a big
time decision as to whether or not they want to continue in nursing and have to move away from
their sport, or whether they do something else. Most often times, they will change their major.”
More directly, Dart said: “It’s difficult for us, as well, when we have a kid that’s caught in
between. Good kid, works hard, but he’s at a crossroads, and he’s going to either have to change
his major or, if he stays in the [major], it’s probably going to affect his play." Stan summed up
the importance of the Athletics Department providing input into the scheduling of studentathletes: “I would hope they [other campus leaders] trust the Athletic Director to know what is
best for the student-athletes.”
Conflicts between faculty and student-athletes, and the resulting concern by coaches
about the impact on their team, were most frequently resolved either by the FAR, Ann, or the
SASS Director, Dart. Ann discussed a situation when a student-athlete was going to miss an
exam “and was having trouble with the professor, so I was really pleased because that’s the first
time a coach called [me].” Ann worked hard to improve the communication with faculty about
the scheduling needs of student-athletes, reflecting, “I just wanted to get the word out to all of
the faculty that, you know, we want you to help us.” Sometimes, Ann received a request from
Dart to intervene on a student-athlete’s behalf. Ann said, “I’ve gotten a lot of discussions, or lots
of requests from the SASS office. ‘We're having some difficulty with a professor. Would you
mind calling?’” In another instance, Dart explained how he confronted a faculty member for not

81

treating student-athletes the same as non-athletes with respect to scheduling of classes. “She
[faculty] wasn’t really happy with me. So sometimes I’ve... I’ll get myself tangled in situations
like that where you’re confronting a top level administrator, an academic dean, or in this case,
his department head, but that’s what you’ve got to do when you believe your kids are doing what
they’re supposed to do.” Dart perceived he became better respected for his work through his
willingness to build relationships with faculty and engage with others during his career. He said,
“I think [my reputation] has changed from the eligibility guy to... to the area on campus that
‘he’s doing a pretty good job with athletes.’ I think the respect factor has gone up.”
Hiring coaches.
There is a concern among many faculty at SSU that the job of coaches is to help studentathletes just play sports, instead of coaches understanding that student-athletes are students first
and foremost. This strain at SSU adds to the tension between athletics and faculty in the faculty’s
perception of high salaries for coaching staff without accountability for the academic
performance of student-athletes. In part to address this faculty perspective but also to hold
coaches more responsible for academic outcomes of their athletes, several stakeholders
commented about a new strategy implemented when hiring coaches. President Sean recently
began including performance clauses within the contracts of head coaches.
One example of a clause was an incentive for supplemental compensation, in this case
within the contract for a baseball coach. The clause stated: “$2,000 should the baseball team earn
an annual academic grade point average of 3.0 or above. If the cumulative Academic
Performance Report (APR) averages 925 or below, no supplement will be paid.” Sean took the
lead on this initiative, saying: “I suggested it to the Athletic Director and he embraced it.” Not
only were incentive clauses included, but there were also consequences to coaches for not

82

meeting minimum APR scores included in their contracts. Sean said, “We put a coach on
probation because of his APR scores two years ago... we brought him in and told him this is in
the deal: it either improves or we’re going to change.” This belief was shared and enacted in the
Athletics Department where head coaches were more recently held accountable for their teams’
academic performance. Stan said, “Our philosophy is the head coach is responsible for the
academic performance of their athletes.”
When it came to the actual process of interviewing candidates for head coaching
positions, both Ann and Dart had different perceptions of their ability to have input. Ann
believed her persistence in improving her visibility and improving the potential impact of the
UAC has enhanced her value on campus. Ann said, “I think I’m becoming really visible…I want
the faculty to understand what the committee’s role is…We’re just trying to do the kinds of
things to make faculty more aware of the fact that these are serious college students.” Her efforts
to increase her credibility more broadly on campus added to her role and value in coaching
decisions. Ann said, “We got a new basketball coach in the fall and I was on the search
committee for that, which I really appreciated, and he [AD] had a chance to talk with the football
coach about, frankly, what our expectations of him were.”
Conversely, Dart felt left out of the loop in hiring processes of head coaches. As the
Director of Student-Athlete Support Services (SASS), Dart was the individual who helped advise
student-athletes with class and major choices, and was also the person who sets up tutoring and
other forms of academic assistance. Dart said, “You have their best interests at heart, but if you
don’t have a strong coach backing you up, it ain’t going to happen... it won’t happen, and I’ve
seen that, I’ve seen that with my own eyes where if you just... if you have a coach who just don’t
care about the academics.” Dart believed he should be involved in the decision to hire coaches

83

because of the need to raise awareness of how coaches who recruit student-athletes that are atrisk academically may set student-athletes up for failure or otherwise unwittingly cause SASS to
expend more of its limited energy on the more at-risk student-athletes. Dart said, “I’ve not been
in any decisions when we’ve made [football and men’s basketball] coaching changes... I’ve not
been involved in that process, and I think I should be, I mean, because I have some... I have
some areas of interest.”
Special admits.
Dart’s dialogue on the hiring process reflected his concern with admitting studentathletes based on athletic ability who otherwise did not meet the minimum academic
qualifications. The process for allowing “special admits” on campus included university policy
and meeting criteria developed by the Admissions by Committee. SSU policy limited the total
number of special admits of all students to campus, both student-athletes and non-athletes, to a
maximum of seven percent of each entering class. According to SSU’s self-study to the NCAA,
of 727 special admissions between 2005 and 2007, 47 (or 6.5 percent) were student-athletes. The
criteria for admissions included a letter stating interests, goals, life experiences, co-curricular and
work experiences, and personal strengths and talents. The members of the committee who
reviewed special admissions applications were appointed by the Provost. Richard, the Faculty
Senate Chair, reviewed all of those students, including student-athletes, admitted by committee
to understand the impact of the policy. He said, “It was getting a handle on which students are
admitted by exception so we know how the policy was affecting us.” Sean, the President, noted
the importance in admissions of not providing athletics with any special treatment with relation
to other departments at the institution. He said, “The athletics department presses the coaches not
to bring too many of those [special admits] to the institution’s attention.”

84

While he provided a review of applicants, Dart perceived his input was limited because
the coaches already spent the effort and time to recruit athletes based on their athletic talents.
After coaches recruited these athletes as potential SSU students, the Assistant Athletic Director
for Compliance provided copies of the prospective student-athletes’ transcripts and experiences
and shared it with Dart for review. He said, “I don't have very much involvement with who our
coaches are recruiting in the first place.” Still, his concern was with coaches who did not mind
the academic preparedness of the student-athlete as illustrated in this example he provided: “I’d
say, ‘Coach, you know, you can’t become top heavy now.’ I’d say, ‘You gotta, you’re bringing
in a lot of kids who, I mean, we don’t know if they’re going to ever play for you.’ I mean, we’re
going to do our best, but that was a very difficult challenge, when you’ve got, you’re signing 22
kids and 13 of them are problems.” Dart summed up his relationship with coaches who recruited
academically at-risk student-athletes: “That’s something I’ve always argued about and felt that,
you know, you guys, you all got to think about us sometimes when you’re recruiting kids.”
Some teams at SSU may have had more special admits than others, which also reflected
how an individual’s application for admission was received. Stan said, “You can’t just look at
bottom line qualifications. I think you’ve got to look at the make up of the entire squad.” He
used examples to explain SSU athletics’ rationale such as: “you know, if it’s the only person on
the golf team that is an at-risk student. There’s literally one. We may let that person in. Okay.
The exact same qualifications may not get in the basketball team because, they have, whatever,
50 percent of their team is at risk.” If there were some recruits that were flagged as potentially
not able to succeed academically by Dart or the Assistant Athletic Director for Compliance, they
may not be referred to the Committee for consideration. Stan said, “We look at the list before it

85

is taken to the full committee, because we may pull some people off of it.” However, on one
occasion, when the Admissions by Committee rejected a recruit’s request for admission, the head
coach appealed to the President. Sean stated, “He came to me appealing the decision of the
committee, and I said the position of the Committee is filed.” In other words, the President
supported the position of Admissions by Committee, and did not support the coach’s appeal.
Summary.
The last quote mentioned above is representative of the change in culture about decisionmaking at SSU in response to several urgent situations, and several changes in high-profile
administrative positions. Situations in athletics in which stakeholders were involved in decisions
included NCAA academic improvement plans, academic coaches programs, academic eligibility
issues, improving interaction between faculty and athletics administrators, hiring coaches, and
the special admissions process. At SSU, the President became more influential in decisions in
several of these areas – such as providing resources for an academic coaches program and the
hiring process of coaches – after academic issues became more problematic. Both the FAR and
Athletic Director were influential in academic eligibility issues and improving interaction
between academics and athletics. The Athletic Director and the SASS Director were also
influential in the special admissions process. These academic issues helped to clarify the extent
to which the stakeholders interviewed in this study influenced decisions at SSU.
Pacific Western University
At the time of this study, Pacific Western University (PWU) was a public institution in a
densely populated urban area with more than 20,000 enrolled undergraduate students and
designated with a Carnegie classification as a university with high research activity. Its
intercollegiate athletic program consisted of 16 sports with more than 300 students who received

86

scholarships to represent the institution as participants in athletics competition. The institution
competed at the highest level of intercollegiate athletic competition, in NCAA Division IFootball Bowl Subdivision.
Darryl, the President of PWU, relied on a cabinet of five vice presidents (Provost and
Academic Affairs; Administration and Finance; Chief Information Officer; Student Affairs; and
University Advancement), as well as a chief of staff, a special assistant, and the Athletics
Director. As part of the cabinet, the Athletics Director (AD) reported directly to the President as
did each of the five Vice-Presidents.
In 2005, the first year after the NCAA’s new academic performance policies were in
effect, Pacific Western University received significant public reprimand for the poor academic
performance of its athletics teams. Indeed, several of its teams were significantly below the
NCAA’s benchmark score of 925 for its Academic Progress Rate (APR), which at the time the
NCAA predicted would equate to approximately a 50 percent graduation rate; its football and
scored below 900 in each of the four years of data considered in this study; its basketball team
scored below 900 in three of the four years. This deficiency was concerning across the PWU
community, in athletics, in administration, among the faculty, among the students, and among
alumni. “We were on thin ice,” noted Mark, PWU’s current faculty senate chair. Several
stakeholders at PWU provided insight into some of the events, policies, and practices at PWU
that contributed to the environment which led to the NCAA reprimand. Stakeholders talked
about decisions in response to teams – primarily the football team – failing to meet the minimum
APR benchmark in 2005 and in subsequent years.
Within his first year in office, Darryl, the President, replaced the Athletic Director (AD)
who had been in charge while the institution was sanctioned by the NCAA. In reflecting on his

87

choice of AD, Darryl indicated that he quickly became very confident in the new AD’s focus on
academic performance, saying, “The Athletic Director I have takes a really strong position on
academic performance and so I support him every way I can on that and that's paid off." In
addition to this personnel decision, Darryl believed that providing resources (money and
personnel) to the system would help improve the academic performance of student-athletes: “I
saw what [other institutions] were doing versus what we were doing and we adjusted, so that was
a resource issue.”
In each year between 2005 and 2009, the NCAA publicly reprimanded PWU for failing
to meet minimum benchmarks of academic performance (determined by the NCAA’s APR) for
students participating in several sports. As a result, PWU created academic improvement plans
for each sport and each of the plans, as implemented, eventually succeeded in improving the
APR scores for all of the at-risk sports; as of 2011, every sport at PWU met the NCAA’s
minimum academic benchmarks. Thus, the environment at PWU provided a useful case study to
learn about the impact of certain stakeholders on decisions and policies created to improve the
academic performance of student-athletes.
In 2011, PWU submitted a certification document to the NCAA. This process, called a
“self-study,” is required once every 10 years for each member of the NCAA. As stated in the
self-study, “The President is responsible for the annual performance review of the Athletics
Director. The President also has oversight of the athletics program through responsibility for the
university budget and finances including student fees. The President also has a role in the
conference affiliation of the university. In addition, the President works closely with the
Athletics Board. The President’s chief of staff is a member of the Athletics Board and the Board

88

advises the President as directed by university policy and as the President requests” (PWU selfstudy, 2011).
First, this section shares comments about several events relating to the structure of the
athletic program and the effect on academic performance of the athletics program prior to the
NCAA’s decisions. Events, policies, and practices over time were used as the context to
understand how stakeholders influenced decisions. Interviews provided insight relating to events
and changes within the PWU administration and its athletics department over the two years
following the NCAA reprimand. The reprimand profoundly affected decisions to create and
administer academic programs for its student-athletes including admissions, major choice, course
selection, class attendance policies, tutoring services, and tracking the academic performance of
athletes. The first event shared below is a Faculty Senate decision in 2004 affecting athletics.
Faculty Senate reduces financial support of athletics.
The Faculty Senate at PWU held a vote in the spring of 2004 in which the faculty
supported, by a margin of three-to-one, a resolution recommending the President withdraw the
institution from the NCAA’s highest competitive level – Division I-A (now called Division IFootball Bowl Subdivision). The resolution also limited public financing of the athletics program
to 1.8 percent of the school’s overall budget. The PWU student newspaper at the time quoted one
dissenting faculty member as stating, “As someone who was against the resolution, I am for the
spirit of holding athletics accountable ... they don't have a blank check." Mark, the Faculty
Senate Chair, painted a stark picture about the relationship between athletics and academics at
the time: “How do I put this, the interaction between the Senate and athletics was not good on
the order of ten years ago.” Emily, current Assistant Athletic Director for Academics,
concurred: “They [Faculty Senate], wow, historically had an extremely negative perception of

89

the Department of Athletics.” Part of the reason for the negative perception of athletics was
behavioral issues of football team members. Emily stated, “But there was a large group of
[football players] that were not good citizens. They got themselves into trouble.”
This Faculty Senate vote was perceived favorably over time as one in which athletics was
held accountable. Mark stated: “there have been senate chairs that have been perceived as
enemies of it, and my feeling is, we spoke several years ago on how much support [athletics]
should get and if they’re managing to pull off their program in light of that, then good for them.”
An outcome of the vote was an understanding of the need for a new stable source of revenue.
During Darryl’s first tenure as President of PWU from 2004-2006, he led an effort to engage
alumni and students to publicly support the need for the student body to increase its fee for
athletics to help pay costs of maintaining the program. Approval of the fee by the Faculty Senate
was covered in the student newspaper with a quote by the then-Senate Chair: “We either don’t
pay now and we have an athletic program that suffers, or we pay the extra $65 and have an
athletic program that grows. We can’t let one of our university programs suffer.” The impact of
this strategy was shared by Pete, the Alumni Director of PWU: “The alumni association led a
campaign to try to get that student fee increased and it was voted on by the students to do it, so
they bought in that it was important for athletics from the general fund.” Darryl believed that
faculty antagonism towards athletics significantly lessened in the wake of these events: “the deal
we had made with the faculty and that seemed to take the energy out of the Faculty Senate's
action.” Pete concurred, saying, “that all went away when associated students honored the
leadership of this president.”

90

Administrative changes.
In the fall of 2004, the President received word two days before a significant football
contest that several football players were academically ineligible. Darryl was not happy: "I was
told on Thursday afternoon before Labor Day… that we had nine players ineligible on Thursday
afternoon for Saturday games.” At the time, the Faculty Athletics Representative (FAR) was in
charge of checking and confirming eligibility of all student-athletes. Emily, the Assistant
Athletic Director for Academics and former assistant to the SASS Director, shared the process of
confirming eligibility at the time: “I don't know how the heck they did it then, but the FAR at
the time cleared those people to participate.” Ben discussed the previous process of ensuring
academic success in football more broadly: “Before I became the FAR and two coaching staffs
ago in football, made a great deal of lip service to the student-athletes making sure they were
students first.” One outcome of the timing of learning about football players’ ineligibility was for
the President to lead an effort with new guidelines for hiring and changing the responsibilities of
the FAR. President Darryl stated, “We actually replaced [the past FAR] because of his
performance." By fall 2005, the Academic Senate approved changes to the hiring guidelines and
selected Ben as the new FAR. Ben recalled, “part of my hiring was, look, we’re going to
professionalize. You’re not gonna be responsible alone for eligibility. You’re going to be an
auditor. You’re going to make sure that the right processes are done.”
Beyond changing the FAR, another more immediate outcome in fall 2004 was to clean
house in athletics and in the administration. Darryl said: “I had asked the AD to leave, the
football coach to leave, the basketball coach left, and then I had two vice presidents that I let go.
So we made a major change in administrative team.” He was emphatic about his role in these
changes: “Those were my decisions,” and rationalized the decisions, saying, “we needed to get a

91

good base in there so the athletic program had a chance to succeed.” More bluntly, Darryl said,
“It was just a mess, so it just needed to change.”
A new athletic director arrived in late 2004 and began creating new academic programs
soon after his arrival. This required hiring new staff with experience, including a director of
Student-Athlete Support Services (SASS) from another Division I-FBS institution, and hiring
Emily as the assistant to the SASS Director. The SASS Director had experience with
academically at-risk athletes, while Emily had experience creating academic support programs
with respect to general education requirements. The two new staff complemented each other well
in creating a new process to improve academic performance in athletics. Emily said, “[The SASS
Director] really led the charge initially and then allowed us to, not allowed us, but found value in
the collaborative efforts toward the beginning of the second year.” She also noted, “We really
kind of gravitated toward each other’s strengths.”
Academic performance announcement.
By spring 2005, the first Academic Progress Rate (APR) scores were announced,
reflecting poor academic performance of football and several other sports. The NCAA’s public
announcement of PWU’s poor academic performance, the penalty resulting in a loss of
scholarships, and the requirement for PWU to create and implement academic improvement
plans provided an impetus for change. The FAR said, “The pressure to do something about that
came largely from the NCAA, which was on the verge of decertifying us.” The Alumni Director
stated, “We had to say clean it up. We’re embarrassed by that. We don’t want to be in the
[newspaper] anymore. We don’t want to be about academic performance.” The President spoke
of his work with the new Athletic Director creating a process to improve academic performance,
indicating, “That spring we outlined the reasons we needed to do this.”

92

Gene was appointed as the Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs in fall of
2005 and he implemented a structural change, moving academic support for athletics from within
the Athletics Department to reporting to him. Gene stated, “I walked into this office and that
mandate came along and I said I want those things over here. I want them back over here. They
belong in academic affairs because it’s academic support.” It was from this line of authority that
Gene was able to understand, review, and provide resources as necessary (and available) to
support the new academic performance plans and to support the needs of SASS. Gene said, “We
want to control, and I use that word carefully, how all these services are provided.” Furthermore,
he added: “I know the President was behind me in wanting to do this. I couldn’t do it on my own.
I didn’t have the authority, and the President wanted... to get more connected to the campus and
we all agreed on that and he gave me license to do it and I did it.”
As new staff members, Emily and the new Director of SASS set out to identify the
problem areas in the academic performance of PWU student-athletes. Emily said, “Our first
charge was really to jump in and see what the heck’s going on” and, “our first charge was to
decipher.” Emily felt the academic improvement plans helped create a framework to understand
the issues leading to the poor academic performance at PWU. She said, “I think these
improvement plans really identified for us, or helped us identify what was missing with our
policies and the things we didn't have in place.”
Special admits.
One of the areas identified as a reason for the poor APR scores at PWU was admitting
students who were successful playing sports, yet were either not academically qualified or
underprepared to meet the academic expectations at PWU. Reducing the number of academically
at-risk student-athletes admitted to campus, also known as “special admits,” was identified in

93

PWU’s plan as a key to improve the academic performance in football. In other words, admitting
less special admits to football and increasing the number of athletes who were academically
qualified would hopefully lead to higher academic performance (as measured by APR) and
potentially higher graduation rates. Ben, the FAR, stated: “Our president has said, I don’t want to
see those, or at least, I don’t want to see many because apparently the previous president had
approved a large number of them and, as I said, that’s how we got into the problems with the
APR and so on.”
Ben served on the special admissions committee along with several others including the
Registrar and the Director of Academic Success at PWU. This special admission committee
reviewed all admissions for exception of students with special talents, including athletes.
However, since the time Ben assumed his role as FAR, “only once” had he been informed by
athletics staff, by a coach, or by the President about a special admit who was an athlete prior to
the admissions review process.. Instead, much of the work to provide documentation about
academic preparedness and other talents for each at-risk athlete was completed prior to the
admissions process. Thus, if a student-athlete had submitted paperwork for admission, it was
only after the coaching staff and the Assistant Athletic Director for Compliance had already
reviewed and decided the student-athlete’s credentials would be acceptable under special
admissions criteria. Gene, the Provost, reiterated this philosophy, saying, “We don't want to
admit them when we’re almost positive they’re going to fail here.” Ben explained that a separate
committee for student-athletes admissions was not created, but explained, “we just haven’t had
that kind of admissions committee in the last year simply because we have not been admitting
people who have not met those kind of requirements.”

94

Additional events and policies impacted special admissions of athletes at PWU. In its
2011 self-study to the NCAA, PWU reported on an Executive Order issued by the Governor
several years earlier that required each public university president to ensure appropriate efforts
and resources be directed to improve the graduation rate of student-athletes, particularly those
admitted as general exceptions for their athletic ability. To insure accountability, the Order
required institutions to report bi-annually on the resources for academic support for athletes, as
well as academic performance (graduation rates, drop outs, transfers). Soon after the Order was
issued, the new Athletic Director and the President began to implement a new structure for
academic performance and create academic improvement plans for sports not in compliance with
APR. Emily stated, “The second year was when we started developing plans for tutoring
programs and identifying at-risk student athletes coming in the door.”
In the 2008-2009 academic year, PWU’s academic improvement plans included a new
policy in which all freshmen and transfer athletes were automatically placed into a SASS
academic program, regardless if the student-athlete was a regular or special admit. The academic
program, outlined in more detail below, included peer tutoring, academic study hall, and weekly
academic meetings. Emily stated that, “we all come to the table in a group effort with the FAR
and the Director of SASS to do more checks and balances.”
Thus, a confluence of events relating to special admits, administrative changes, and the
public admonishment of poor academic performance led to decisions which impacted the
implementation of SASS and the creation of specific academic and tutoring policies, programs,
and services. The specific types of decisions and resulting academic programs provided
additional insight into how PWU attempted to rectify the academic performance issues and also
improve the public reputation of its athletics teams.

95

SASS and advising athletes.
Student Athlete Support Services (SASS) was a unit created at PWU specifically to help
meet the academic needs of student-athletes; this unit is common among universities who
participate in NCAA Division I. The Director of SASS reported directly to Gene, the Provost and
Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs, and not to the Athletic Director. In discussing the
origin of SASS at PWU, Emily recalled, "[The VP for Enrollment] was a huge supporter and
identified [why SASS was needed]. He also came from another big institution at the Division I
level and identified early on when he was here that we did not have adequate services for our
student-athletes. So I know he had a large hand in that.”
One of the most important aspects of SASS from the onset was to ensure that studentathletes understood their responsibilities as students and how to succeed academically. Part of
that involved goal setting and providing the resources to have individual advisors dedicated to
each athletics team. This need for resources was understood on campus as a priority. President
Darryl provided the initial resources to the Athletic Director, and said, “That was a resource
issue and then I held the Athletic Director responsible for the talent around it, and he’s done a
good job with that.” Gene, the Provost said, “I don’t have the funds to put an advisor in for a
team, but if they wanted to do it, we’ll accommodate them. We’ll get the advisor. It’ll be
dedicated to that team.”
PWU’s academic improvement plans for football and several other sports included goals
and procedures that were implemented by SASS to improve players’ academic performance. The
academic improvement plans included a focus on graduation, instituting registration training
programs to improve student-athletes’ ability to register for classes they needed to graduate, and
creating weekly academic meetings with peer advisors for all new (freshmen and transfer)

96

student-athletes as well as all continuing at-risk athletes. PWU’s self-study to the NCAA
specified this focus on graduation as an important emphasis: “there has been a shift in StudentAthlete Success Services philosophy (begun two years ago) from advising to meet NCAA
eligibility to advising to graduate. This has likely contributed to the higher persistence of special
admits.” This philosophy is reflected in the PWU self-study through the use of the “Priority
Triangle” concept (Figure 3):
Student – graduation

Sport – eligibility

School – APR

All advisement of student-athletes should take into account these 3 priorities!

Figure 3. Priority Triangle. Adapted from “Self Study Items for Operating Principle 2.1,” NCAA
Division I athletics certification self-study instrument, Pacific West University Athletic
Department (2011), p. 47.

Emily discussed her role at the very beginning of SASS, working with men’s basketball
players on a daily basis, as an example of how SASS enacted its role in student academic
achievement, saying, “[we] educate them on how to get into classes, how to get across campus
and talk to your major advisor, how to decipher what major to choose, really educational
planning for them on a weekly basis.” One of Emily’s primary duties was to ensure that athletes
were registered for classes and were academically eligible with respect to NCAA and

97

institutional regulations in order to participate athletically. As one of the administrative changes
to improve athletic eligibility, the Athletic Director placed these duties on her instead of on
athletics compliance. Emily said, “I think he [AD] found it more fitting that the Assistant AD for
Academics position would oversee athletic eligibility and move it through the pipeline because
of the importance of APR.” The process was intended to ensure student-athletes remained
eligible. Emily stated: “I would get the student in here, they’ve got to sign up for winter session,
they’ve got to get that GPA up to two-point whatever it was. The game plan.” Ben noted how
SASS and Emily eventually set up a process by which student-athletes could graduate early
based on their course planning, stating: “She sets up the environment to where it’s a very
desirable thing.” Another program that assisted student-athletes because of their time demands
was a priority registration process, in which student-athletes were able to sign up for their classes
prior to other students. Ben noted this may help improve the environment for student-athletes to
succeed academically: “as a result, there is less pressure on that student because we do have
preferential registration.”
Part of ensuring eligibility was a direct communication with head coaches about the
academic performance of student-athletes. Emily’s duties included “communicating with head
coaches on a weekly basis who wasn’t doing study hall, who wasn’t going to class” and “hashing
out those grades, put them in a grid for every coach, send them off, call them, ‘Hey, you’ve got a
heads up, so and so... looks like they might be ineligible.’” And, if a student-athlete was
struggling with their academic performance, a plan specific to the student-athlete’s needs was
created, involving the student-athlete, a learning specialist, the academic advisor, the Director of
SASS, and the head coach. Mark, the Faculty Senate Chair, believed this process was significant
in improving athletics’ relationship with faculty: “[SASS] took it very, very seriously, sort of

98

beyond the level required by policy to track athletes.” Communication between SASS, the
athletic staff, the coaches, and senior administrators seemed to be important at PWU, as well.
Emily said, “where we came from no communication six years ago, it’s over-communication
now.” Further, she said, “So, when I walked in the door six years ago, the conversation I would
have with somebody who was on the Academic Senate would look a lot differently than today. I
think they have gained trust in our... in us as a department.”
Athletic administrators and SASS also worked to improve relationships with faculty and
administrators across campus to ensure that student-athletes succeeded academically. Emily
shared this point, stating, “I work with student-athletes and that first response was a very, an
extremely negative, like ‘oooh.’ There was no bridge between athletics and academics and it was
painful.” The significance of the negative response from faculty did not deter Emily, but rather it
seemed to motivate her, “mainly because I found it extremely invaluable to communicate with
these people that had negative experiences.” As FAR, Ben was frequently perceived as the
intermediary between athletics and academics; coaching staff who may have been concerned
about an academic issue with one of their players understood that Ben could help solve the issue
because of Ben’s faculty relationships. Ben said, “I’ve had [and still have] a very, very good
relationship with the coaches. I would say that the head coaches for the most part know me and
know my name.” Emily summed up her thoughts about the impact of communicating and
building relationships for those in SASS to be successful: “it took courage and extreme
communication that first year and a half.” The Athletic Director embraced and rewarded
Emily’s dedication and enthusiasm (promoting her from within SASS to assistant athletic

99

director for academics), and found her services valuable to lifting the Athletics Department’s
public profile by improving its academic performance.
Yet, communication did not preclude student-athletes from clustering in specific classes
with other student-athletes; this could have been a result of peer friendships, less rigorous
courses, or professors who were grade-friendly to student-athletes. The clustering impacted how
SASS engaged with student-athletes’ goal setting. Ben said, “So they counsel with them, but
they never say you can’t do it. Clearly, we have a lot of kids in sociology, we have a lot of kids
in kinesiology.” Mark, the Faculty Senate Chair, shared a similar sentiment: “I have had athletes
take labs from me, which run from 1 to 3:40, I guess is the official time for them, and I’ve
noticed that they’re very keen to get done… maybe more keen to get done than to do a great
job.”
Occasionally, professors disagreed with scheduling specific student-athletes around
assignments or non-equitable grading of student-athletes with respect to those students who are
not athletes. In some of these instances, Ben was involved in his role as the FAR. For instance,
Ben related a time when a student-athlete was not provided the same opportunity to earn
assignment credits as non-athlete students because the student-athlete was traveling with the
team. Ben said, “I would talk to the professor and the athlete and say, is there something we can
do to work through this, so it’s a negotiation.” Speaking to the same challenge, Emily shared,
“yep, give FAR a call. The student tried to go multiple times [to the professor], here’s some
emails from the student to the professor. I’ve tried to communicate with them. They’re not being
user-friendly.” This demonstrated the work necessary for both Emily and Ben to get faculty to
understand the specific needs of student-athletes, and learning how other individuals on campus
can work with students to represent student’s academic concerns.

100

The next area provides some perspectives on the Athletic Director’s decision-making and
how he led by building, and supporting, relationships across campus.
The role of the Athletic Director.
As noted earlier, the academic issues with the football team came to a boil late in the fall
of 2004 leading to the President dismissing the football coach and hiring a new Athletic Director
(AD). The process of hiring the AD included a selection committee created by Darryl, PWU’s
President, and headed by a successful coach in the professional National Football League. The
new AD stated his concern about the poor relationship that existed between the athletics program
and academics when he told the campus newspaper: “I certainly will be more visible on
campus… I hope to become a very recognizable person.”
The Athletic Director made quick decisions; for example, within a week of taking the job,
he named a new football coach. Subsequently, the AD appointed additional staff to start a new
program for Student-Athlete Support Services (SASS), including Emily and the new Director of
SASS. From the beginning, the President, the Provost, and the AD understood that a
commitment to provide SASS with appropriate resources was necessary to improve the academic
performance of the student-athletes. Darryl stated: “That was a resource issue and then the
athletic director I hold responsible for the talent around it, and he's done a good job with that.”
In early 2005, the Athletic Director announced “Operation Graduation” in which SASS
helped organize the academic structure of all football players’ non-athletic activities including
note-taking requirements, calendars, and assignments. That spring, the initial APR report of poor
academic performance was released; while it reflected negatively on the institution, it also
provided a benchmark from which to make improvements. Darryl noted how the APR report
highlighted the need to reorganize academic support services: “the AD and chief of staff and

101

myself, there was probably five or six of us in the meeting, we talked through [the issue and how
SASS could play a role] and changed it.” Gene concurred with this recollection: “I was in the
President’s office when they had to turn around these APR ratings, I mean, we started this
initiative.” By 2006, Emily was providing the AD with APR reports by semester. Emily said:
“He [AD] started meeting one-on-one with student-athletes that were not going to class and
telling them, as the AD, ‘I’m going to take your scholarship if you don’t pull your head out of
your you-know-what.’”
In 2007, the Athletic Director again leaned on Emily with respect to creating a policy to
make coaches accountable for the APR of their student-athletes by placing it within their annual
evaluation and merit pay increases. Emily stated: “We [Emily and AD] meet weekly on issues
that were popping up, but I remember him telling me, ‘This is ridiculous, I’m putting this in their
contracts. I can do that, right?’” Ben noted his support of the measure: “The Athletic Director
indicated to me that part of the contract with the coaches includes a clause that if a certain APR
score is not maintained, that that could be grounds for removal and he has my full agreement on
that.”
In response to poor APR scores, the AD made decisions to improve APR scores. For
instance, he included APR in coaches’ contracts; he helped create and organize SASS; he created
meetings and student-specific academic plans; and, he reduced the number of student-athletes to
admit as students with special talents but lacking the academic credentials. Emily said that, “I
really believe that everything at one point became APR driven.”
Many individuals noted how the Athletic Director turned to them for the support and
other resources necessary to make SASS successful in helping to improve the APR of the
football team and of other athletic teams. For instance, the policies and practices included in the

102

academic improvement plans were well received by the President, which added authority and
institutional authority to the AD’s decisions. Gene stated, “The AD put it up to the president and
that meant the staff were put into place with the mandate... that they needed to get it to work. The
President would make it clear, in no uncertain terms.” In one instance, Emily recalled how
PWU’s policy of not checking attendance was problematic for student-athletes who historically
missed many classes. She presented a solution to the AD: “So I would bring to him [AD], we
have no class attendance policy. This is a problem. ‘Emily, institute it. Let’s go. I’ll sign off.
What do you need me to do?’” In another instance, Emily referred to how instituting a new
computer program to check grades throughout the term and to communicate that information to
athletics staff and coaches would be useful: “The SASS brought it to the table, ‘Hey, this could
benefit us, we could save some money, we could be more efficient with our information’... and
[AD] said ‘Okay, let’s do it. Let’s get it done. What do you need from me?’”
There has been support from across the administration for how the Athletic Director
implemented these procedures to improve academic performance in athletics. The President said,
“The real credit is to the AD and the coaches, that if kids get behind in class and don’t perform in
class, the coaches usually take pretty hard, quick action on it, so we’re pleased with that.” And,
the FAR said, “They [faculty] perceive the Athletic Director as being very successful in
improving those numbers.” Part of the AD’s strategy of open communication included providing
a report to the Faculty Senate each year. Mark said: “He’s [AD] been here six or seven years,
there’s been an annual report to the Senate. So, I don't know the history of how that was initiated,
but it’s become a practice." Darryl, the President felt that success of the AD in improving
academic performance keyed on relationship-building and keeping lines of communication open.
He said: “[the AD] does it very well, in creating relationships, communication, conversations

103

with the places where the kids interact with the institution. So he has a good relationship with
housing, with enrollment services, financial aid, and he insists on that, and I think in the past that
hasn’t been there.”
Summary.
The case of PWU provided several policies, programs, and practices to understand how
stakeholders perceived they influenced academic decisions in athletics. Areas of decisionmaking used to understand the relative perceived influence of stakeholders included: the decision
by the Faculty Senate to reduce funding for athletics, administrative changes led by the
President, the academic performance programs and the creation of SASS, and the special
admissions process. The amount of influence as perceived by the President was significant in
helping to shape decisions, particularly in replacing several high profile administrators and
working to respond to concerns of the Faculty Senate. Both the President and the Athletic
Director perceived they were influential in creating a new SASS. The SASS Director and
Athletic Director perceived they were influential in the academic performance process by
creating relationships across campus to improve APR scores. Investigating the decisions by these
stakeholders helped to understand the urgent need at PWU to make significant improvements in
academic performance of student-athletes and athletic teams.

104

CHAPTER FIVE: DATA ANALYSIS
Three primary themes emerged from the data presented in Chapter 4: urgency,
presidential involvement, and faculty-athletics interaction. Each of these themes is presented
below with respect to their proximity to the athletics department, in order from the most distant
in where they originated (urgency) to the closest internally (faculty-athletics interaction). In each
section, I define the theme and share information from each of the three case sites. It is presented
in this way to help create an understanding of how stakeholders perceive they are influential in
academic decisions in semi-autonomous units, such as athletics.
Urgency
One of the early themes readily apparent across the three sites was how a sense of
urgency impacted the perceived influence of various stakeholders on academic decisions related
to student-athletes. Urgency was found in the immediate need to respond to significant
situations. In this study, the situations involved NCAA rules and regulations relating to academic
performance, and in some cases, concerns about eligibility of student-athletes. The NCAA
penalized each institution in the study with a loss of scholarships for teams failing to meet
minimum Academic Progress Rate (APR) scores. Yet, each of the institutions handled the
situations differently based upon their own organizational structure and their own environment –
in particular, their own climate and culture. The extent that an institutional structure provided
support or resources in response to the situation affected the sense of urgency of the situation. In
addition, the environment also affected the sense of urgency at each institution e.g., a stated need
to improve athletics success (wins and losses), strains between athletics staff and faculty, and
budget decisions affecting athletics needs.

105

At Southern State University, a new President took the lead by “changing the culture” of
the institution and having individuals outside the Athletics Department initiate new expectations
about academic performance. Sean used a business-like, CEO approach after he became
President, and directed academic stakeholders to respond to poor APR scores and NCAA rules
violations. He immediately took charge by creating academic performance clauses in coaches’
contracts and providing additional resources and tutors to the Student-Athlete Support Services
(SASS) Department to improve academic success in men’s basketball and football. The
University Academic Committee created an academic advisory committee, with the Faculty
Athletics Representative (FAR) leading the committee in writing the academic improvement
plans. The FAR worked with the athletics compliance officer and head coaches to identify why
academic deficiencies were occurring. The academic advisory committee placed academic
expectations into the plan. Eventually, the plan was provided to the Athletics Department to
implement. One of the areas identified for improvement was tracking student-athletes’ eligibility.
The FAR’s request for resources to develop a new database to track student-athletes’ eligibility
demonstrated how the FAR was able to use her position to impact change.
At Pacific Western University, an environment of crisis existed after very poor APR
scores of several teams and the public acknowledgment of football players ineligible to play two
days prior to the first game of the year. The crisis led to decisions by the new President, Darryl,
to sack several administrators and coaches and to make wholesale administrative changes.
Indeed, the sense of urgency was significant and the response was reminiscent of a corporate
takeover. Pete, the Alumni Director, said “we were embarrassed,” and Mark, the Faculty Senate
chair said, “we were going to lose our [NCAA] certification.” Darryl, the President, was new
and he used his bully pulpit to change the environment. “It needed to change,” he said, “I kind of

106

set the tone.” Darryl appointed a committee to hire a high-profile athletics director and a new
football coach. In less than a year, a new SASS department was created, and it reported to the
Provost, not to athletics. Darryl and the new Athletic Director provided the SASS department
with the personnel and financial resources necessary to be successful. Academic performance
plans were created and implemented by the SASS Director and her assistant, Emily, after they
identified areas of deficiency with assistance of the FAR and the Athletics Compliance Director.
Decisions made by the new SASS Director and Emily included new database tracking systems
and creating relationships across campus to reduce tension and improve understanding between
athletics and faculty. After APR scores significantly improved, the Provost believed the SASS
department was a model to be emulated for non-athletic student academic needs across campus,
although he noted that it would be a challenge to scale up the support system – more than 300
student-athletes versus more than 20,000 non-athlete students.
At Midwestern University, there was demonstrated confidence in the athletics department
to respond quickly, efficiently, and adequately to the low APR scores for men’s basketball.
Cindy, the President, noted her confidence in the current process in place, including the Athletic
Director, Mike (the Director of SASS), and Len (the FAR). The athletics department reacted to
the need to improve APR for its men’s basketball team by using the same process that was
previously successful for improving APR for football. The only individual outside of athletics
engaged with the plan at a preliminary stage was Len. When the plan was created by Mike, Len
reviewed it and the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee “kind of blessed it.” At MU, reliance on
the knowledge and experience of the FAR was significant to address academic performance
issues, including poor APR scores.

107

The sense of urgency of stakeholders across all three institutions was evident in how they
responded to situations regarding poor academic performance of athletics teams. At MU, the
response to improve APR scores was created within the athletics department. This may be due to
the collegial environment at MU, with few academic issues within athletics in the past, open
communication and close friendships across campus, and individuals in key stakeholder
positions for long periods of time. There was a perceived greater urgency at SSU to make
changes because of several years of APR scores below the NCAA minimum benchmark and
other academic violations of NCAA rules. The response was led by an academic committee and
the FAR, with resources provided by the President and the Athletic Director. At PWU, the
urgency was also great across the entire campus with sub-925 APR scores on several teams, lastminute suspensions of football players due to academic ineligibility, and the Faculty Senate
reducing the revenue stream. The President responded quickly by replacing key stakeholders and
creating a new SASS department with the resources for improved academic performance. In each
institution, a sense of urgency (such as APR scores that jeopardized the university’s standing
with the NCAA) created an immediate need to respond to significant situations. Urgency created
a context for action but also affected the relative perception of influence of individuals on
academic decisions related to student-athletes.
Presidential Involvement
It is well documented in the literature (Bok, 2003; Duderstadt, 2003; Estler & Nelson,
2005; Toma, 2003; Toma, 2005), by organizations such as The Knight Commission on
Intercollegiate Athletics (2009) and the Association of Governing Boards (2004), and in reports
from the NCAA such as the 2006 Presidential Task Force on the Future of Division I
Intercollegiate Athletics (NCAA, 2006a), that greater presidential involvement in the decision-

108

making of intercollegiate athletics is imperative for colleges to ensure integrity in the operations
of athletics within the educational mission of colleges. There are similar findings in this study
with respect to how stakeholders at each of the three institutions became more involved in more
urgent situations, including presidents using their high authority to impact decisions. And, when
situations were most urgent and perceived as most significant, presidents were the most involved
of the stakeholders selected for this study.
How college athletics fit within the educational environment at each of the three
institutions was on greatest display when presidents made decisions about athletics. At PWU
where the sanctions were most severe, Darryl, the President, was very involved. As a former
Division I student-athlete, he cared about and valued athletics, and understood the importance of
athletics to PWU symbolically, culturally, and through institutional identity. He took the lead by
removing two vice presidents, replacing the Athletic Director, basketball coach, and football
coach, saying “those were my decisions.” He reached out to the Alumni Director to build
support for students to vote in favor of paying increased fees to financially support athletics; by
doing so, he reduced the faculty antagonism toward athletics. He felt he “needed to make the
changes” because the institution was in a crisis mode.
At SSU where circumstances were serious, Sean, the President, was also very involved.
He said, “I’m probably more involved than might be typical.” His rationale was a need to let
people know that the environment needed to change to better align athletics within the
institutional mission, saying, “Let's get back to this issue of culture. Everyone who's involved
needs to believe in and understand the way things are supposed to be done.” Sean appointed the
new FAR and initiated the effort to include academic performance measures in coaching
contracts. He provided resources to the SASS department to ensure the academic coaches

109

program had more tutors. He participated in annual meetings in discussions with athletics staff,
faculty, and athletes. Sean believed in this: “It was important that the university reinforced our
support for athletics, remind everyone that this is an academic institution.” The FAR and
Athletic Director stated their need to inform the President of the academic progress of athletics
teams. Sean was direct: “I think I've set the tone. I think I've sent a clear message.”
Conversely, at MU, Cindy, the President, took a hands-off approach to the athletics
program. “I don't have a heavy hand on the tiller here. I have confidence and trust in the
dispersed processes of governance.” Her involvement was limited to one of communication, in
that she was made aware of issues, including, as an example, missed class assignments for
student-athletes. After understanding the problem, she noted the need for either the Provost or
the Vice President for Student Affairs to get involved “because it was an academic issue.” Cindy
stated her confidence in the personnel already in place to make the proper decisions to address
concerns about APR scores. In one case relating to academic eligibility of an athlete, she said, “I
said, well it’s either going to be up or down, but it’s up to him, and no special deals, and I don’t
even know if he made it or not, so... that’s how influential I am.” Her approach was more of
delegation rather than micro-management, and she left involvement in athletics primarily to the
Athletics Department and to the FAR.
The high-profile nature of college athletics, and the public acknowledgement of poor
academic performance at the three institutions in the study, provided the opportunity to
understand how presidents could become involved to help rectify concerns. At PWU and SSU,
the two institutions with more significant concerns, each president felt the need to assert their
authority and make significant change. At MU, Cindy and other stakeholders did not believe she
needed to be as assertive because the problem was not significant enough and she believed the

110

structure in place was sufficient to handle things. At each of these campuses, the concerns
perceived by most stakeholders as urgent across the entire campus were the concerns which
provided the rationale for more presidential involvement.
Faculty-Athletics Interaction
Another theme that influenced how stakeholders were involved in decision-making was
relationship-forming, creating conversations, and having a campus environment with open
communication. Much of this was reflected in the need to improve understanding between the
academic areas and the athletics department, particularly at SSU and PWU. This theme of
faculty-athletics interaction is embedded with two sub-themes: relationships and structure. Each
of these subthemes relies primarily on interaction or engagement between faculty and athletics
administrators, but from different perspectives and with different intentions. First, I share the
deliberate intention of stakeholders to create relationships and/or to use/improve existing
relationships across campus.
Faculty-Athletics interaction: Relationships.
At each institution, stakeholders often related how relationships were significant in
helping them make decisions. Many of these relationships were formed over long periods of time
at the institution, sometimes in other capacities or job duties than those held at the time of the
interviews. Other relationships were created to improve the faculty understanding of athletics
and to improve athletics staff understanding of academics. Creating relationships between
athletics and academics was used as a tool to find assistance and resources to improve the
academic performance of student-athletes.
For instance, at MU, Len, the Faculty Athletics Representative (FAR), had a very long
tenure as a faculty member, and served more than 13 years as an FAR. Stakeholders discussed

111

the high level of respect that everyone on campus had for the FAR as a “distinguished” faculty
member. Len noted the relationships he developed during his time at the institution contributed
to his ability to find the information he needed as FAR. His relationships proved beneficial in
several instances: with Mike, the SASS Director, or athletics department officials on eligibility
issues; with Greg, the Admissions Officer, or coaches on special admissions decisions; or,
identifying concerns with Mike and with faculty on missed class assignments incurred by
student-athletes. The relationships Greg created during his long tenure at MU provided him the
opportunity to review special admissions requests and to influence academic improvement plans.
The need to create relationships, in addition to using existing relationships, was seen as
critical at SSU. Ann, the FAR, was relatively new, appointed by the new President. Both the new
FAR and new president understood the need to improve their communications and work together
to improve their ability to impact concerning situations; their realization was in part because the
previous FAR served a very long time and was close to the previous president. So, relationships
that previously existed and were thus important to problem solving changed with the change in
leadership. Ann understood the need to develop relationships as a way to be more successful in
her duties. She worked across the institution to enhance her role and her value. As a result, she
was being called upon for input into coaching hires, and coaches called her for counsel on
faculty-athlete issues. The new Athletic Director at SSU was hired from within; he had been in a
variety of roles for a long time on campus and was seen as someone who could initiate change.
Dart, the Director of SASS, said, “he [AD] was also one of the guys that could pick up the
telephone and call the VP of Academic Affairs and there was immediate cooperation between the
two, I mean, he was... already at the table.... that would have taken somebody else a few years to,
I think, earn that level of respect.”

112

At PWU, Ben was selected as the new FAR after his predecessor had not properly
reviewed eligibility of football players. Before his selection as FAR, Ben had a long history as a
very well respected faculty-member. The President chose Ben based on his network and respect
across campus. During his time as a faculty member, Ben developed a positive relationship with
the Faculty Senate; this relationship was important when the Senate voted in favor of cutting
institutional funding for athletics. The President and the assistant to the SASS Director relied on
Ben’s experience and understanding of academic issues in decisions. Emily, then the assistant to
the SASS Director, worked diligently to improve relationships with faculty to help implement
the academic improvement plans; this was even more critical after the Faculty Senate voted to
reduce funding. She said, “that took a good year and a half and that’s why I’m in the position I
am today, because I had to make those relationships with everybody on campus.” Darryl, the
President, believed the success of the Athletic Director was based on cross-campus relationships.
Darryl said: “[The AD] does it very well, in creating relationships, communication,
conversations with the places where the kids interact with the institution. So he has a good
relationship with housing, with enrollment services, financial aid, and he insists on that, and I
think in the past that hasn’t been there.”
Relationships among and between the stakeholders interviewed in this study were
important to academic decisions affecting student-athletes. Stakeholders who had stronger or
who had a wider span of relationships were often in a better position, or perceived they were in a
better position, to influence outcomes and be effective in their jobs.
Faculty-Athletics interaction: Structure
Another aspect of interaction between faculty and athletics was how the location of
athletics fit within the academic mission of institutions. This concern has been growing in

113

importance in the literature, most recently in the NCAA’s 2006 Presidential Task Force Report
(NCAA, 2006a) and in a 2009 national survey of faculty requested by the Knight Commission on
Intercollegiate Athletics (Knight Commission, 2009). Faculty are not engaged enough with
athletics, and as such, their lack of understanding has led to increasing concerns that athletics
does not fit appropriately within the academic mission of higher education. The strain between
athletics and academics is often structural, as realized in this study by stakeholders at two of the
three institutions.
For instance, at MU, the SASS Department was housed within athletics and reported to
the Athletic Director. Therefore, academic eligibility and advising were closely affected by
athletics compliance issues. This impacted the positive perception stakeholders shared of
athletics’ ability to rectify the academic performance concerns of the men’s basketball team. All
stakeholders who participated in the study talked about “open communication” on the MU
campus as an important aspect of using relationships to be effective in their jobs, noting their
ability to “just pick up the phone” and communicate with others, including with the Athletic
Director. There was also a history of few academic performance issues within athletics at MU.
Len, the FAR, was the primary intermediary between faculty and athletics and it seemed most of
the discussions of practice, policy, or decisions took place through Len.
The structure of how faculty-athletics interaction developed was vastly different at SSU.
Enhancing faculty-athletic engagement was seen by most stakeholders as of paramount
importance. Stan, the Associate Athletics Director, believed interaction was important, including
direct discussions with academic deans. He said: “I can tell you right now. I’ve also seen the
success of the philosophy, ‘get involved.’” Ann, the FAR, worked diligently to improve her
value to both faculty and athletics by making herself available and willing to engage in academic

114

issues. She understood that being at the nexus between athletics and faculty provided her with an
opportunity to improve relationships, to be prepared for challenges, and to also improve her
personal profile on campus. Dart, the SASS Director, reported to the Provost, and was in close
communication with academic advisors and with academic deans. Dart frequently shared
concerns directly with faculty and felt strongly this contributed to him no longer being perceived
as the “eligibility guy” by faculty on campus. In addition, the policy for the University Athletic
Committee to appoint members to follow up on teams’ academic improvement plans was another
example of how the structure allowed for improved interaction.
At PWU, a significant contributor to the crisis in 2005 was the lack of interaction
between faculty and athletics. The President replaced the previous FAR and took steps to create a
new environment to improve the engagement between faculty and athletics. A new SASS
Department was created and reported to the Provost. By 2011, Mark, the Faculty Senate Chair,
perceived there was a positive relationship between the faculty and athletics. Ben, the FAR,
served in a capacity in which the relationships he built provided him the ability to resolve
conflicts with faculty. Within the SASS Department, Emily believed she needed the opportunity
to build relationships with faculty; this was a structural change by creating a process for
relationships to occur. Emily said, “Academic advisors that are placed now have continued to do
the liaison-ship with multiple entities and each of them have very good relationships with
different departments. It’s almost like we created a structure.”
Interestingly, PWU’s Provost and Faculty Senate Chair recognized that the new SASS
Department was something they will attempt to emulate with the academic support center
provided to students who are not athletes. Emily’s work creating structural interaction between
athletics and academics was rewarded with a promotion from the SASS department into the

115

Athletics Department. Emily said, "[the AD] kept hearing my name popping up because I was all
over the place carrying a banner, you know, with a cape that said, ‘athletics is going to be fine,’
and I didn’t work for him.” Also, the Athletic Director began presenting a report to the Faculty
Senate on an annual basis that included academic performance of student-athletes. Furthermore,
the President’s value of athletics within the academic mission was reinforced when he endorsed
the Faculty Senate decision to reduce institutional funding of athletics, while also turning to the
Alumni Director to build student support for the need to increase student fees to fund athletics. In
other words, the President created a new structure that provided athletics stakeholders the chance
to create or enhance their relationships across campus, thus reducing the tension between faculty
and athletics.
In each of the three institutions investigated in this study, stakeholders made clear that
interaction between two areas of campus – faculty and athletics – was important to reduce the
strain and improve mutual understanding.
Summary
Three primary themes emerged from this study with respect to the perceived influence of
stakeholders in academic decisions in college athletics: urgency, presidential involvement, and
faculty-athletics interaction. Each of the themes provided an opportunity to understand who and
what influenced decisions under different environmental and structural factors at each institution.
Urgency was realized when the NCAA notified schools of poor academic performance, but
became more salient when combined with poor academic performance affecting multiple teams,
lack of appropriate tracking of eligibility, or other NCAA rules violations. Presidential
involvement in decisions in athletics was more significant when the academic situations affecting
athletics were more urgent, or perceived to be more pressing. And, faculty-athletics interaction

116

was a key contributor to the ability for stakeholders to affect academic decisions. Relationships
between athletics and faculty, either creating relationships or using pre-existing relationships,
were critical to improving the academic performance of student-athletes and athletic teams.
Improving academic performance also relied on a structure in which athletics and faculty
involvement can be more deliberate and allow for better, and more open, communication.

117

CHAPTER SIX: IMPLICATIONS
This chapter presents a brief overview of the purpose of the research including the
research questions, the theoretical framework, and the process of data collection and analysis.
First presented is a brief outline of the research questions, the theoretical framework, and the
process of data collection and analysis. Then several implications are shared of how higher
education administrators and faculty can benefit from learning about the connections between
different areas of campus, several strategies in decision-making, and how relationships between
stakeholders in different areas of responsibility can foster productive and efficient outcomes for
the institution, for students, and for the stakeholders themselves.
The primary purpose of this study was to understand how stakeholders within higher
education perceive their influence on academic policies, programs, and practices affecting
college athletes. Three institutions from different areas of the country were selected as case sites.
Although each site had its own unique culture and environment, the three institutions had similar
demographic characteristics, as well as similar academic concerns with their football or men’s
basketball teams. Interviews at each site revealed several consistent themes that helped to answer
the research questions that directed this study:
1. What factors contribute to the perceived influence of stakeholders on decisions about
academic policies, programs, or practices in athletics?
2. What is the relative amount of perceived influence of stakeholders on decisions about
academic policies, programs, or practices in athletics?
To help answer the research questions, a conceptual framework was developed from
several areas of the extant literature: a theoretical understanding of what constitutes influence,
the roles and duties of different stakeholders, and the organizational structure of athletics within

118

major research universities. A qualitative study was used to collect data that would elucidate an
understanding of the influence of particular individuals (stakeholders) in academic decisionmaking affecting athletics. The use of document analysis and interviews allowed for collecting
and interpreting content-rich data from a subjective point of view in which the interviewees
shared their view of reality and how their view was or was not influenced by others.
Studying several academic situations within athletics at three different institutions helped
focus attention of the research and allowed for developing implications about how stakeholders
can respond to significant and high-profile (or volatile) situations. The three institutions were
selected with similar criteria to provide some conclusions that may be transferable to other
institutions. Each of the institutions competed in the NCAA’s most competitive division,
Division I-Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS). Further criteria of site selection included similar
institution size, athletics budget, and academic performance of the men’s basketball and football
teams below the NCAA’s benchmark score of a 925 Academic Progress Rate (APR); at the time
of this study, the NCAA stated a 925 APR approximately predicted a 50 percent graduation rate.
Relevant institutional documents and materials relating to the overall research questions were
analyzed, including a review of NCAA self-study documents, local and community newspapers,
institution websites, and academic improvement plans created by institutions as an NCAA
requirement for teams with sub-925 APR scores.
At each location, six interviews were conducted for a total of 18 interviews. The
stakeholders interviewed were identified from the literature and included admissions officers,
alumni directors, athletics directors, Faculty Athletics Representatives (FARs), faculty senate
chairs, presidents, provosts, and directors of Student Athlete Support Services (SASS). A semistructured interview guide was developed after researching several academic concerns in

119

intercollegiate athletics, including: student-athletes’ tendency to cluster into similar classes or
choosing similar majors; admitting student-athletes for their athletic talents despite not meeting
institutional minimum academic requirements (“special admits”); and, academic improvement
plans for athletic teams. Interviews were recorded by computer software and subsequently
transcribed. During the transcription process, pseudonyms were given to each institution and to
each interviewee to protect identities. After transcriptions were coded with pseudonyms, they
were analyzed for themes within each institution, and subsequently analyzed for themes across
institutions. Three significant themes affecting influence emerged from the data analysis:
urgency, presidential involvement, and faculty-athletics interaction.
Findings
The first research question about factors that contribute to perceived stakeholder
influence was found to be based both on structure and on relationships. Not only did urgency as a
factor impact individual stakeholders close to the situation and their level of influence, but it also
provided an opportunity to change the structure, potentially leading to different levels of
influence in the future. In this study, increased presidential involvement in pressing situations
often led to changes in structure to provide greater use of resources, or greater opportunity to
form cross-campus relationships.
Further, the culture of the institution can be leaned upon in urgent times. Leaders
demonstrated support for the cause by using institutional pride and symbols to forge greater
appreciation and understanding. Presidents often used organizational culture to influence
decisions, but they were not the only stakeholders for whom culture was a factor; athletic
directors, FARs, and SASS directors made effective use of aspects of institutional culture, as
well. Relationships were also found to be key factors affecting perceived stakeholder influence,

120

especially those that crossed faculty and athletic boundaries. Those for whom relationships were
particularly important factors affecting perceived influence were those who, while in named
positions, often had to work outside institutional formal authority to be effective. For example,
FARs have NCAA authority and responsibility, but their ability to succeed within the
institutional setting is largely based on the relationships and credibility they establish with
faculty and athletic administrators.
The second research question about relative perceived influence of stakeholders was
found to be dependent on the connection of the stakeholder to the decision being made and their
proximity to it. The closer to a situation, the more stakeholders perceived they were influential in
that situation. Stakeholders who were closer to the situation also felt greater urgency to solve it
and exercise their influence. And, when the situation was more problematic or perceived to be
more urgent, presidents became more involved and exercised greater influence. This relates to
Hersey and Blanchard’s (1977) situational leadership theory, which considers the effectiveness
of leaders when they interact with others under different conditions. Even for presidents as
stakeholders, how they influenced the context in which decisions were made related to the
specific institutional climate, which allowed them to be influential and to gain influence.
Implicationss
The themes provided a basis for several implications about perceived stakeholder
influence in making decisions that should prove useful for future administrators in higher
education, as well as for faculty who interact with fairly autonomous units, such as
intercollegiate athletics.

121

Urgency.
One implication from this study is that urgency can be used as a management strategy of
higher education stakeholders. Influence became more salient when situations became more
urgent. Thus, urgency is useful as a tool to manage decisions by creating an environment for
certain stakeholders to be influential, or to either enhance or diminish stakeholder influence.
Urgency should not be considered a negative pressure on decision-making, but rather it can be
used to positively strategize if (or when) concerning situations occur. Urgency can be used to
strategize through: 1) enhancing leadership by using authority to act or to build capacity for
pulling people into action; 2) focusing attention by selecting targets and controlling resources; 3)
or, emphasizing shared values by addressing an institution’s symbols or culture. These strategies
are similar to Orton and Weick’s (1991) strategies of influence mentioned as the “voice of
compensations” (p. 211) in their model of loosely coupled systems. In addition, an important
strategy is for stakeholders to develop relationships across campus, either prior to, or in response
to urgent situations. These relationships and the credibility associated with them help
stakeholders (not limited to presidents) effectively negotiate strategies of urgency, build
coalitions, and mobilize allies as necessary to influence decisions (Morgan, 1997; Orton &
Weick, 1990).
Using strategy, even if incomplete, is important in a time of stress and change in the
loosely coupled system of a higher education institution when it may be necessary to “launch the
actions associated with a preliminary strategy long before it is carefully thought through and
completely developed” (Duderstadt, 2001, p.45). Darryl at PWU and Sean at SSU fall in line
with this concept of an emergent strategy in which leaders take actions and are public about the
importance of their actions. The perceived crisis for both institutions because of the NCAA

122

sanctions provided a platform from which both presidents took bold actions, reinforcing a sense
of urgency and their ability to lead in difficult times. Their use of urgency as a leadership
strategy to make necessary and informed institutional changes is reminiscent of Bess and Dee’s
(2008) and Keller’s (1983) calls for leaders to make data-based decisions in strategic ways so as
to avoid becoming reactive prisoners of external forces (the NCAA in this study).
Urgency as a strategy can be as beneficial to other stakeholders as it is to those in
positions of highest authority. In crisis situations, stakeholders that are closest to the situation
may feel the greatest pressure to make improvements, and it behooves these stakeholders to
make decisions as soon as possible, so long as they are in line with the academic mission of the
institution. Considering the stakeholder theory of influence, it may be the high-profile and high
pressure nature of intercollegiate athletics places urgency in a position of greater impact on
influence than the impact of either legitimacy or power (Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, 1997). Future
research of decisions affecting other semi-autonomous units would be useful to learn if urgency
impacts influence on decision-making as it did in this study.
Urgency: Enhancing leadership.
The strategy of enhancing leadership is one in which stronger leadership is necessary to
make decisions that will benefit the institution. To make decisions, stakeholders with authority
should not necessarily wait for instructions, wait for policies, or wait for committees; rather, they
should act. When situations in an institution become significant enough or compounded with
other concerns, stakeholders in positions of higher authority and with the ability to make
campus-wide decisions need to act and make decisions to rectify the situation. Those who are in
positions with different levels of authority could use urgency as a leadership strategy to
communicate with other decision-makers, to use or develop relationships that can help influence

123

the situation, and in so doing, build leadership capacity throughout the institution to be pulled
into action when needed.
In this study, academic concerns at three institutions were presented, with differing levels
of presidential involvement and, presidents were expected to influence decisions within the
university setting. As academic performance issues became more problematic and as the
publicity of the issues escalated, the urgency to respond subsequently increased, and presidents
and other stakeholders became increasingly involved. This may be the case in other crisis
situations at a university if certain situations also receive high-profile criticism; in this study,
academic performance concerns were acute because the high-profile nature of NCAA sanctions
at the institutions created pressure to make immediate improvements. But, in terms of enhancing
leadership, presidents should plan ahead, and not necessarily wait for situations to compound
into a crisis before they act (Duderstadt, 2001; Leslie & Fretwell, 1996). A strategy to plan for
the worst, for the unexpected, or to create processes for responding to crisis situations is one that
should involve stakeholders across campus who have relationships and resources to respond in
the institution’s best interest. For instance, President Cindy at MU created a climate which
allowed for cross-campus relationships to flourish, and thus allow for a quick and efficient
response in an urgent situation.
Multiple stakeholders can take a leadership role by sharing how they can be impactful in
making decisions by working with those across campus, or using resources at their disposal. This
form of enhancing leadership relates to McShane and Von Gilnow’s (2008) idea that leadership
among individuals within different levels of authority can be transformational, changing the
organization’s strategies and culture to better fit with the environment. Future research should
focus on whether or not crisis situations in less competitive levels of the NCAA, particularly

124

Division II or Division III, lead to similar levels of the need for presidential involvement in
decision-making and/or are addressed through enhanced leadership capacity throughout those
institutions.
Urgency: Focusing attention.
Higher education stakeholders can also focus their attention on specific concerns in a
time of urgency by providing the resources necessary or creating policies or programs that will
lead to improvements. It is through these decisions over resources that presidents can use their
authority and their ability to change or shift the organizational structure. Reorganizing reporting
lines, for example, to locate Student Athletic Support Services under a provost rather than
athletics, can send strong signals about the ties between academics and athletics. Another
example of resource allocation and structural change would be establishing committee structures
with clear accountability measures through which close working relationships between FARs
and athletic directors can develop to more effectively address student learning and athletic goals.
Other stakeholders also have different opportunities to influence decisions for
improvement. In this study, as academic concerns escalated, presidents and other stakeholders
made decisions to provide new resources (more money, more personnel, new personnel, new
database), restructure the areas of concern, and create compensation policies relating to academic
performance. Although one could argue that increased presidential involvement is a sign of
centralizing decision making in times of crisis and resource constraints (Baldridge, Curtis, Ecker,
& Riley, 1978; Leslie & Fretwell, 1996), this study also found other stakeholders exercising
perceived influence on how resources and structures were allocated to address institutional
needs. For instance, at PWU, the Alumni Director used his position and networking to lead
students in support of an increased student fee to enhance the funding for PWU athletics to

125

remain competitive within Division I-FBS. And, at MU, the SASS director required
academically at-risk student-athletes to work with existing academic support programs.
At both MU and PWU, these non-presidents were able to mobilize their resources by
energizing a student power base to raise fees and by using broader institutional academic support
resources, thereby not having to expend SASS resources and more closely connecting the
academic needs of athletes with other at-risk non-athlete students. Having a more complete
understanding of one’s existing resources, knowing when and how to use them, and making
relationships to find and use those resources are essential stakeholder strategies to influence
decisions and improve problems in crisis situations that emerged in this study. They are likely
just as important strategies in non-crisis situations. Situational leadership theory reflects this
implication, in which leaders focus on developing structure in situations when followers have
less ability or resources to complete tasks (Hersey & Blanchard, 1977); and, as the situation
improves in resources and followers’ abilities, leaders can then provide followers with greater
participation in decision-making (Bess & Dee, 2008).
In this study, urgent decisions about resources were made in environments with open
communication to foster understanding about the importance of the decisions. An implication is
that by focusing attention on structural changes and resource allocation and being more
transparent in the process, leaders can provide stakeholders with new opportunities to forge and
improve relationships across campus, share resources, and be creative and strategic in their
efforts to create programs for improvement. This resembles Leslie and Fretwell’s (1996) point
that a strategy to create close working relationships across campus improved how stakeholders’
understood decisions. The ability to create, invest, or shift significant resources to respond to
urgent situations is different in institutions of different size, structure, and culture, such as those

126

colleges in NCAA Division II or Division III. Future research about decisions to shift or move
resources at institutions of different sizes, structures, or cultures would be useful to learn how
stakeholders, and which stakeholders, can be influential in those decisions, or perceive
themselves to be influential.
Urgency: Emphasizing symbolism and shared values.
In times of crisis in this research and in other studies, leaders also turn to institutional
symbolism and shared values to restore meaning to the institution (Bess & Dee, 2008; Bull,
1984; Dill, 1982; Toma, 2010). Other stakeholders should take this into account when assisting
in the development of new strategies which use, or enhance, the institution’s symbols while also
reflecting the shared values of the institution. One strategy may be to include a review and
reassessment of the institution’s mission, or similarly to create an environment where the shared
values of the institution become predominant in the decision-making. Bess and Dee (2008) noted
a similar strategy by faculty and staff in their strategic response to “identity threat” (p.157) as a
result of statewide budget cuts to higher education. Interestingly enough, athletics – which is
highly symbolic to institutions via its mascots, sport team nicknames, fight songs and cheers,
cheerleading squads, marching bands, school colors and athletic logos – is among the fairly
autonomous departments that are useful when one considers using symbolism in strategic
decision-making. In urgent times, higher education stakeholders may choose not to make
decisions that will upset the academic apple cart, but rather make decisions in-line with restoring
institutional pride and respect, often through symbolic leadership (Toma, 2010). The idea of the
symbolism of athletics as it relates to institutional identity has received attention, particularly
from Sweitzer’s (2009) research on the meaning of conference affiliation to institutional identity.

127

Moving beyond Sweitzer to research how stakeholders directly use athletics in their decisions to
prop up other non-athletic units of an institution would prove useful.
Cross-campus relationships.
It is also important to consider authority outside of presidential authority at an institution
and learn which individuals have established influential relationships within the organizational
structure. This study found stakeholders who reach across campus to create relationships are
doing so potentially because of personal interest, but moreover to benefit their own positional
profile and to be perceived as impactful to the institution, thereby enhancing their authority. As a
stakeholder who may not be a president or whose obvious authority related to academic
influence may not be as clear, staying just within one’s own reporting area will not improve
influence in what is of particular interest. Relationships must be developed, preferably prior to a
crisis, and nurtured for a stakeholder to be influential, and ultimately successful (Morgan, 1997).
Bull (1994) found that in the process of managing change, leaders should create organic
processes that rely upon relationships that encourage discretion and judgment, team building,
openness, and delegation. This finding was reinforced in this research through many instances by
those who were able to be most influential in academic decision-making affecting athletics.
As occurred at each institution in this study, cross-campus relationships can impact
efficiency and academic success of fairly autonomous units and potentially move stakeholders
into other administrative positions with similar duties. Stakeholders should realize their
individual success lies in their ability to create and use relationships across campus, and that
these relationships are beneficial to the institution. Similarly, situational leaders are those who,
in certain situations, creating and enhance relationships in addition to directing work to be done
(Bensimon, Newmann, & Birnbaum, 1989). Internally to the institution, the system depends on

128

these relationships that are often outside reporting lines and often socially constructed, with
“structure as something that organizations do, rather than merely as something they have” (Orton
& Weick, 1991, p. 218). And boundary-spanning relationships that stretch beyond the
organization and its environments are “critical to organizational survival and success” (Bess and
Dee, 2008, p. 714) as was found in the way stakeholders at each of the three institutions in this
study were caused to create or mobilize networks, effectively create academic improvement
plans, and deal with faculty or public scrutiny.
Indeed, making decisions requires interactions among people, takes time, and has an
impact on the organization (Chaffee, 1983). Thus, being deliberate about a process to develop or
enhance relationships assists with making decisions that impact the effectiveness of an
institution. Bull’s (1994) concept readily applies to stakeholders at all levels, who should create
or use their cross-campus relationships to work with leaders to resolve problems from crisis
situations. Future research can look more closely at how crisis situations in other fairly
autonomous units provided the opportunity to create cross-campus relationships which were
fruitful to individual stakeholders and to the institution.
Institutional climate matters.
One additional, important consideration is the impact of institutional climate on the
ability for stakeholders to be influential. Institutional climate became the elephant in the room in
this research. The study expected to provide findings to help map the extent that stakeholders in
a semi-autonomous unit, such as athletics, were able to influence decisions. Instead, the study
found that perceived stakeholder influence on decisions depends on the institution and its
climate. Therefore, the theoretical model proposed by Mitchell, Agle, and Wood (1997) did not

129

necessarily work for this study. The findings of this study relating to perceived stakeholder
influence were not consistent with what was expected given the literature review.
While the focus of this study was on individual stakeholder perceived influence on
certain decisions affecting athletics, it also found that institutional context matters. Thus, the
research not only questions the perceptions of influence, but how the perceptions impact or relate
to influence as practiced. Furthermore, the research considers not only who may be influential,
but also what impacts their influence, how they are influential, and why they are influential. Each
institution has a different culture, as well as a different climate that affects how decisions are
made (Bess & Dee, 2008). It is the culture and climate that help form the significance of how,
what, and why certain individuals are influential. This study began with the purpose of learning
about who was perceived to be influential, but ended up learning about what the roles of certain
stakeholders mean within the institutional climate and culture, and how these stakeholders
perceive their influence within that climate and culture. In the future, while certain quantitative
measures are important in the site selection process to find commonalities of institutions, it is just
as important to take into context how the institutional climate and culture may affect influence in
decision-making.
Limitations
A delimiter of this study was its investigation of institutions that had already been
impacted by NCAA policies and had already responded to improve the situation. Thus, while
this study adhered to certain criteria in the site selection process, situations at institutions not in
the site selection criteria may differently impact stakeholder decision-making. Furthermore, this
study did not include interviews of other potential stakeholders, such as legislators, board of

130

trustees, boosters, or members of the media; therefore, the outcomes of the study may be
different based upon data from interviews of these other stakeholders.
Summary
This study set out to learn more about the perceived influence of stakeholders on
academic decisions affecting intercollegiate athletics, with the intent that such knowledge would
help provide useful implications for future leaders making decisions that impact unique student
populations. Interviews of administrators at three institutions helped to contribute to the
knowledge in higher education about strategies used by stakeholders to make decisions,
particularly when situations are most urgent. Using urgency as a management strategy can
provide leaders with an opportunity to adapt and respond quickly to situations, create greater
stakeholder understanding of the rationale behind decisions, and enhance institutional pride
through shared values and symbolism. The interactive nature of situational leadership is an
important implication, as stakeholders can realize their leadership also depends on how their
engagement with others is impacted by the situation and by the environment. In addition,
building and using cross-campus relationships is a critical tool for stakeholders to influence
academic decisions.

131

APPENDICES

132

APPENDIX A
Interview Guide
Rationale: This document was developed to help build a conversation with a list of topic areas
and questions relating to research questions. This interview guide may be modified over time to
focus attention on areas of particular importance, or to exclude questions found to be
unproductive (Hoepfl, 1997; Weiss, 1995). As noted by Weiss (1995, p.48), “the best guides list
lines or topics so they can be grasped at a glance” without interrupting the flow of the interview
or being too dense to focus on the guide instead of the content and context of the interview.
Thus, these interviews serve to be used as a guide, and to allow the researcher to pursue data as
they emerge (Patton, 1990).
Introduction: The researcher will greet the subject participant and introduce himself with
personal information.
Purpose: The researcher will explain the purpose of this study is to learn about the relative
amount of power of various stakeholders in the decision-making of academic policies affecting
intercollegiate athletics.
Procedures: The researcher will explain that open-ended questions will be asked in individual
interviews. Interviews will last approximately one hour, depending on the extent of information
the participant wishes to share. Participants will be informed that their interview will be recorded
and transcribed, and shared with them for their feedback.
Protection: Confidentiality will be assured by informing them that pseudonyms of institution
and individual will be used in data analysis and in the final study. Participants will be
encouraged to share only information with which they are comfortable sharing, and that they
may discontinue the interview at any time.
Guide: The interview guide is listed below.
Conclusion: After each interview, additional comments will be accepted before the participants
are thanked and dismissed.
Perceptions of interaction with athletics
•

INTERACTION WITH ATHLETICS. Can you describe your interaction with the
athletics department?

•

INTERACTION WITH PLAYERS. Can you describe your interaction (directly or
indirectly) with football or basketball players? What was your experience

•

PERCEPTION OF YOUR INTERACTION? How do you believe you are perceived
by others as interacting with athletics – other leaders on campus or in athletics?

133

Academic performance
•

INFLUENCE ON POLICIES AND PRACTICES. What do you believe is your
influence on academic policies and practices in athletics?

•

RELATIVE INFLUENCE. How is your influence on academic policies and practices
relatives to others on or off campus? Why do you feel that way?

•

HOW DO YOU INFLUENCE ACADEMICS? How do you believe you direct or
influence academic policies or decisions which may affect the football or basketball
team?

•

INFLUENCE OF OTHERS? Who do you believe is influential on campus? To what
extent? Why are they influential? How are they influential?

Interactions on academic policies or practices
•

INTERACTION WITH OTHERS? Have you interacted with others on academic
policies or practices? How?

•

SOCIAL NETWORKING: Are there particular individuals or groups with whom
you have a social relationship that affects your impact on academic policies or
practices in athletics? This could be a personal network, social group, or other type
of relationship. With whom? How and to what extent?

•

IMPACT OF INTERACTION OF ACADEMIC POLICIES OR PRACTICES?
What impact did your interactions have on the decision making of academic policies
or practices? With who specifically? Which interactions had the most significant
impact? Which had the least impact? Why or why not?

Specific policies
•

PARTICIPATION & OTHERS IN APR POLICY CREATION. Please discuss your
participation (directly or indirectly, independently or with others) in decisions to
create a policy for the institution’s APR improvement program? To what extent to
you believe you were influential, and influential comparison to others?

•

PARTICIPATION & OTHERS IN MAJOR SELECTION. Please discuss your
participation (directly or indirectly, independently or with others) in decisions
relating to how the institution directs athletes to particular courses or majors? To
what extent to you believe you were influential, and influential comparison to
others?

•

PARTICIPATION & OTHERS IN SPECIAL ADMISSIONS. Please discuss your
participation (directly or indirectly, independently or with others) in decisions
relating to how the institution gives special consideration to athletes in admission to

134

the institution? To what extent to you believe you were influential, and influential
in comparison to others?

135

APPENDIX B
Invitation to Participate
My name is Scott Hirko, and I am a PhD candidate in Michigan State University’s
program in Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education. I am requesting your participation in an
interview that is part of a study examining the relative amount of interaction among various
stakeholders on decision-making of academic policies that affect college athletics.
Your participation will contribute to our knowledge of the role of different individuals
affecting the dynamics of athletics within the academic mission of higher education. I would like
to interview you at a location of your choosing that provides comfort and ensures your ability to
participate. The interview will last no more than one hour.
Your participation is completely voluntary. You may choose to answer some questions
and not others. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law.
Every effort will be made to protect confidentiality. Your responses will be coded with
pseudonyms of both institution and individual to ensure that the any information is anonymous.
There are no known risks associated with participation in this study. A transcript of the interview
will be created and will be shared for your review before analysis.
This study is being produced as a dissertation to complete the Ph.D. degree in Higher,
Adult, and Lifelong Education at Michigan State University. If you have any questions about this
study, please contact Scott Hirko (information below) or Dr. Marilyn Amey, amey@msu.edu,
Professor and Chair, Department of Educational Administration, Erickson Hall, Michigan State
University.
An institutional review board (IRB) will approve this study prior to any interviews. I will
share with you the confirmation of IRB approval and contact information prior to any inquiry.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding this invitation and this
study.
Thank you so much for your participation!
Scott Hirko, Ph.D. Candidate
Higher, Adult and Lifelong Education
Michigan State University
hirkosco@msu.edu
(517) 488-2819

136

APPENDIX C
Written Consent
Dear Participant:
This is an invitation to participate in an interview that is part of a study examining the
relative amount of interaction among various stakeholders on decision-making and academic
policies that affect college athletics. This study, Stakeholder Interaction in Academic Policies
and Decisions in NCAA Division I-FBS Athletics, is conducted by Scott Hirko, under the
supervision of Dr. Marilyn Amey. Each interview will last approximately one hour, depending
on how long your responses are. Your interview will also be audio taped for analysis.
Your participation is completely voluntary. You may choose to answer some questions
and not others. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law.
Every effort will be made to protect confidentiality. Your responses will be coded with
pseudonyms of both institution and individual to ensure that the any information is anonymous.
There are no known risks associated with participation in this study. A transcript of the interview
will be created and will be shared for your review before analysis.
This study is being produced as a dissertation to complete the Ph.D. degree in Higher,
Adult, and Lifelong Education at Michigan State University. If you have any questions about this
study, please contact Scott Hirko (information below) or Dr. Marily Amey, amey@msu.edu,
Professor and Chair, Department of Educational Administration, Erickson Hall, Michigan State
University.
An institutional review board (IRB) has approved this study and the approval form is
attached.
If you have any additional questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study
participant, or are dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact anonymously, if you wish – Judy McMillan, Director, Human Research Protection Programs on
Research Involving Human Subjects, by phone: (517) 355-2180, fax: (517) 432-4503, email
address: irb@msu.edu, or postal mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.
Thank you for participating!
I agree to participate in this study. In addition, by signing below I agree to allow my
responses to be audio taped for research purposes of this study.
Signature ______________________________
Name (Printed)_______________________________

137

Date___________________________

APPENDIX D
Descriptive Questionnaire
Dear :
The four questions below are posed to help provide brief contextual information about
your interactions at __________________. This information will be kept confidential and will be
kept apart from data collected in an interview. Your name and the name of the institution will be
provided a pseudonym to protect confidentiality.
Your participation is completely voluntary. You may choose to answer some questions
and not others. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law.
This study is being produced as a dissertation to complete the Ph.D. degree in Higher,
Adult, and Lifelong Education at Michigan State University. If you have any questions about this
study, please contact Scott Hirko (information below) or Dr. Marilyn Amey, amey@msu.edu,
Professor and Chair, Department of Educational Administration, Erickson Hall, Michigan State
University.
1. Your occupation: _________________________________
2. Length of time in your occupation: ___________________________
3. Approximately how long have you been in this occupation at this location?
_____________________________
4. If different from above, what is your relationship to the athletics department, and for how long
(years): _______________________
Return to:
Scott Hirko, Ph.D. Candidate
Higher, Adult and Lifelong Education
Michigan State University
1355 Turtlecreek Circle
East Lansing, MI 48823
hirkosco@msu.edu
(517) 488-2819

138

REFERENCES

139

REFERENCES
Agle, B., Mitchell, R., & Sonnenfeld, J. (1999). Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of
stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values. Academy of
Management, 42(5), 507-523.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2005). The influence of attitudes on behavior. In D. Albarracin, B.
Johnson & M. Zanna (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Alfred, R. (2006). Managing the big picture in colleges and universities: From tactics to
strategy. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Andre, J., & James, D. (1991). Rethinking college athletics. Philadelphia: Temple University
Press.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Razaveih, A. (2002). Introduction to research in education (Sixth ed.).
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. (2004). Ten public policy issues
for higher education in 2003 and 2004. Washington, DC: Association of Governing
Boards of Universities and Colleges.
Bacharach, S. B., & Lawler, E. J. (1980). Power and politics in organizations: The social
psychology of conflict, coalitions, and bargaining. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Bailey, W. S., & Littleton, T. D. (1991). Athletics and academe: An anatomy of abuses and a
prescription for reform. New York: American Council on Education.
Baldridge, J. V., Curtis, D. V., Ecker, G., & Riley, G. L. (1978). Policy making and effective
leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bensimon, E. M., Neumann, A., & Birnbaum, R. (1989). Making sense of administrative
leadership: The "L" word in higher education. Washington, DC: The George Washington
University.
Bess, J. L., & Dee, J. R. (2008). Understanding college and university organization: Theories for
effective policy and practice. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC.
Birnbaum, R. (1989). The latent organizational functions of the academic senate. In M. C. Brown
II (Ed.), Organization & governance in higher education (fifth ed., pp. 232-243). Boston:
Pearson Custom Publishing.

140

Bogue, E. G., & Aper, J. (2000). Exploring the heritage of American higher education: The
evolution of philosophy and policy. American Council on Education/OryPress Series on
Higher Education. District of Columbia: American Council on Education, Washington,
DC.
Bok, D. (2003). Universities in the marketplace: The commercialization of higher education.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organizations : artistry, choice, and leadership
(Third ed.). San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
Borg, W. (1983). Educational research. New York: Longman, Inc.
Borland, K., Howard, R. D., Sanders, C. T., & Gioglio, T. (2009). Accountability to athletics
stakeholders. In D. B. Kissinger & M. T. Miller (Eds.), College student-athletes:
Challenges, opportunities, and policy implications (pp. 219-234). Charlotte, NC:
Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Bouchet, A., & Scott, M. (2009). Do BCS schools have an advantage over non-BCS schools in
APR Rankings? An early examination. The Sport Journal, 12(4).
Bower, B. (1988). Study takes measure of college athletes. Science News, 134(23), 357.
Brady, E. (2008). Athletes' academic choices put advisers in tough balancing act.USA Today.
Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2008-11-20-athletes-adviserscover_N.htm.
Broughton, E., & Neyer, M. (2001). Advising and counseling student athletes. New Directions
for Student Services, 93, 47-53.
Broggs, C. L. (1996). Differences in degree aspirations and attainment outcomes between
football or basketball players and other intercollegiate athletes. Paper presented
November 1, 1996, at the annual conference Association for the Study of Higher
Education, Memphis, TN.
Brown, W. R. (1982). Academic politics. University, AL: University of Alabama Press.
Bull, J. (1994). Managing change or changing managers? In S. Weil (Ed.), Introducing change
'from the top' in universities and colleges: 10 personal accounts (pp. 81-94). London:
Kogan Page Limited.
Byers, W. (1995). Unsportsmanlike conduct: Exploiting college athletes. Ann Arbor: The
University of Michigan Press.
Carodine, K., Almond, K., & Gratto, K. (2001). College student athlete success both in and out
of the classroom. New Directions for Student Services, 93, 19-33.

141

Carty, J., Heuser, J., & Fenno, N. (2008, March 16). University of Michigan athletes steered to
professor. Ann Arbor News.
Chaffee, E. E. (1985). Three models of strategy. The Academy of Management Review, 10(1),
89-98.
Chaffee, E. E. (1983). Five models of organization decision making. In E. E. Chaffee (Ed.),
Rational decision making in higher education (pp. 5-29). Boulder: National Center for
Higher Education Management Systems.
Christy, K., Seifried, C., & Pastore, D. (2008). Intercollegiate athletics: A preliminary study
examining the opinions on the impact of the Academic Performance Rate (APR). Journal
of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 1(1), 1-10.
Clark, B. R. (1963). Faculty organization and authority. In M. C. Brown II (Ed.), Organization &
governance in higher education (fifth ed., pp. 119-127). Boston: Pearson Custom
Publishing.
Clark, B. R., & Youn, T. I. K. (1976). Academic power in the United States: Comparative
historic and structural perspectives. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher
Education.
Crom, C., Warren, B., Clark, H., Marolla, J., & Gerber, P. (2009). Factors contributing to
student-athlete retention. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 14-24.
Cunningham, G. B., & Rivera, C. A. (2001). Structural designs within American intercollegiate
athletic departments. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 9(4), 369-390.
Delta Project on Postsecondary Education Costs. (2010). Cost of athletics per athlete vs. cost of
academics per student. Retrieved from NCAA_fbs_per_athlete_05_08_revised.xls.
Denhart, M., Villwock, R., & Vedder, R. (2009). The academics athletics trade-off: Universities
and intercollegiate athletics. Washington, DC: Center for College Affordability and
Productivity.
Diacon, T. (2008, September 2). The University of Ohiopennkaniowatenn. Inside Higher Ed.
Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2008/07/15/diacon
Diehl, M. (2009). The academic performance of Division I men's college basketball: Views from
academic advisors for athletics. Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green.
Dill, D. D. (1984). The nature of administrative behavior in higher education. In M. C. Brown II
(Ed.), Organization & governance in higher education (fifth ed., pp. 92-110). Boston:
Pearson Custom Publishing.

142

Duderstadt, J. J. (2003). Intercollegiate athletics and the American university: A university
president's perspective. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Duderstadt, J. J. (2001). Fire, ready, aim! University decision-making during an era of rapid
change. In W. Z. Hirsch & L. E. Weber (Eds.), Governance in higher education: The
university in a state of flu(pp. 26-49). London: Economica Ltd.
Estler, S., & Nelson, L. (2005). Who calls the shots? Sports and university leadership, culture,
and decision making (Vol. 30). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Farrey, T. (Writer) (2009). Outside the lines: Florida State academic scandal: ESPN.
Ferris, E., Finster, M., & McDonald, D. (2004). Academic fit of student-athletes: An analysis of
NCAA Division I-A graduation rates. Research in Higher Education, 45(6), 556-578.
Flower, J. A. (2003). Downstairs, upstairs: The changed spirit and face of college life in
America. Akron, Ohio: University of Akron Press.
Fountain, J., & Finley, P. (2009). Academic majors of upperclassmen football players in the
Atlantic Coast Conference: An analysis of academic clustering comparing white and
minority players. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 2, 1-13.
Frank, R. (2004). Challenging the myth: A review of the links among college athletic success,
student quality and donations. Miami, FL: Knight Commission on Intercollegiate
Athletics.
French, P. (2004). Ethics and college sports: Ethics, sports, and the university. Lanham, MD:
Bowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Frey, J. (1994). Deviance of organizational subunits: The case of college athletic departments.
Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 18, 110-122.
Frey, J. (1982). Intercollegiate athletics in the future: Booster coalition, institutional control, and
the pursuit of scarce resources. In J. Frey (Ed.), Governance of intercollegiate athletics.
West Point, NY: Leisure Press.
Friedrich, C. J. (1937). Constitutional government and politics. New York: Harper.
Gabert, T., Hale, J.L., & Montalvo, G. (1999). Differences in college choice factors among
freshman student athletes. The Journal of College Admission, No. 164, Summer/Fall, 2029.
Gaston-Gayles, J. (2004). Examining academic and athletic motivation among student athletes at
a Division I university. Journal of College Student Development, 45(1), 75-83.

143

Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (Second ed.). New York:
Longman.
Greene, D., & David, J. (1981). A research design for generalizing from multiple case studies.
Palo Alto, Calif.: Bay Area Research Group.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative reserach. In N. Denzin
& Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage
Publications.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1977). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing
human resources (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hoepfl, M. (1997). Choosing qualitative research: A primer for technology education
researchers. Journal of Technology Education, 9(1), 47-65.
Hollis, L. (2001/2002). Service ace? Which academic services and resources truly benefit student
athletes. Journal of College Student Retention, 3(3), 265-284.
Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2008). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches (Third ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Keller, G. (1983). Academic strategy: The management revolution in American higher
education. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Kilian, T. R. (1969). Power constructs in higher education. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.
Kjeldsen, E. (1982). Community interests and intercollegiate athletics. In J. Frey (Ed.), The
governance of intercollegiate athletics (pp. 195-208). West Point, NY: Leisure Press.
Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics. (2010). Restoring the balance: Dollars, values
and the future of college sports. Miami, FL: John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.
Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics. (2009). Quantitative and qualitative research
with Football Bowl Subdivision university presidents on the costs and financing of
intercollegiate athletics: Report of findings and implications. Baltimore: Art & Science
Group, LLC.
Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics. (2007). Faculty perceptions of intercollegiate
athletics survey. Miami, FL: Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics.
Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics. (2001). A call to action: Reconnecting college
sports to higher education. Miami, FL: Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics.

144

Knobler, M. (2008, December 28). College athletes: Academic performance: Behind the line on
grades. Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Retreived from www.newhaven.edu/newsevents/27084.pdf
Krosnick, J., Boninger, D., Chuang, Y., Berent, M., & Carnot, C. (1993). Attitude strength: One
construct or many related constructs? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
65(6), 1132-1151.
Lapchick, R. (Ed.). (2006). New game plan for college sport. Westport, CT: American Council
on Education and Prager Publishers.
Leslie, D., & Fretwell, E. K. (1996). Wise moves in hard times: Creating and managing resilient
colleges and universities. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Letawsky, N., Schneider, R., Pedersen, P., & Palmer, C. (2003). Factors influencing the college
selection process of student-athletes: are their factors similar to non-athletes? College
Student Journal, 37, 604-610.
Lichtman, M. (2006). Qualitative research in education: A user's guide. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications, Inc.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and emerging
confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research
(2nd ed., pp. 163-188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Doing what comes naturally. In Naturalistic inquiry (pp.
187-220). Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Lucas, J., & Lovaglia, M. (2005). Can academic progress help collegiate football teams win? The
Sport Journal, 8(3).
Manning, K. (1997). Authenticity in constructivist inquiry: Methodological considerations
without prescription. Qualitative inquiry, 3(1), 93-115.
Marx, A. (2006). College athletes and student persistence: An examination of Tinto's model
University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.
Mason, J. (1996). Qualitative researching. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
McDaniel, J., & Miskel, C. (2002). Stakeholder salience: Business and educational policy.
Teachers College Record, 104(2), 325-356.
McShane, S., & Von Gilnow, M. (2008). Organizational behavior: Emerging realities for the
workplace revolution (4th Edition). Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Meggyesy, D. (2000). Athletes in big-time college sport. Society, 37(3), 24-28.

145

Melendez, M. (2006). The influence of athletic participation on the college adjustment of
freshmen and sophomore student athletes. College Student Retention, 8(1), 39-55.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Mertens, D. (1998). Research methods in education and psychology. Thousand Oaks, Calif.:
Sage Publications.
Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (Second ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Miller, M., & Pope, M. (2002). The provost's view of the value of faculty led decision-making.
College of Education, San Jose State University.
Miracle, A. W., & Rees, C. R. (1994). Lessons of the locker room: The myth of school sports.
Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books.
Mitchell, R., Agle, B., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and
salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. The Academy of
Management Review, 22(4), 853-886.
Moore, P. (1989). Students as athletes: Making it work. Educational Record, 70(3-4), 44-47
Morgan, G. (1997). Images of organization (Second ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage
Publications.
National Collegiate Athletic Association. (NCAA). (2010). NCAA Division I Academic
Performance Program and NCAA Division I Committee on Academic Performance
Policies and Procedures. Indianapolis: National Collegiate Athletic Association.
National Collegiate Athletic Association. (NCAA). (2009a). Student-athlete academic support
services at Division I institutions. Indianapolis: National Collegiate Athletic Association.
National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2009b). NCAA 2009-2010 Division I Manual.
Indianapolis: National Collegiate Athletic Association.
National Collegiate Athletic Association. (NCAA). (2006a, March 1). Academic reform taking
hold, latest APR data show. NCAA Press Release.
National Collegiate Athletic Association Presidential Task Force on the Future of Division I
Intercollegiate Athletics. (NCAA). (2006b). The second century imperatives: Presidential
leadership -- institutional accountability. Indianapolis: National Collegiate Athletic
Association.

146

Orton, J., & Weick, K. E. (1990). Loosely coupled systems: A reconceptualization. Academy of
Management Review, 15(2), 203-223.
Pacific West University Athletic Department. (PWU Athletics Department). (2011). NCAA
Division I athletics certification self-study instrument.
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.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of
research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage Publications.
Petr, T., & Paskus, T. (2009). The collection and use of academic outcomes data by the NCAA.
New Directions for Institutional Research(144), 77-92.
Phillips, R. (2003). Stakeholder theory and organizational ethics. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler
Publishers, Inc.
Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R., Arpan-Ralstin, L. A., & St. Pierre, J. (2002). Attitude accessibility and
persuasion: The quick and the strong. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), The persuasion
handbook: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 39-61). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rowley, T. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences. The
Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 887-910.
Ryan, F. J. (1989). Participation in intercollegiate athletics: Affective outcomes. Journal of
College Student Development, 30(2), 122-128.
Sack, A. L., & Staurowsky, E. J. (1998). College athletes for hire: The evolution and legacy of
the NCAA's amateur myth. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.
Satterfield, J. (2006, November 3, 2006). Factors affecting intercollegiate student athletes and
athletics. Paper presented at the Association for the Studies of Higher Education,
Anaheim, California.
Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Schiferl, K. (2009). Staff blog: Schiferl on student-athlete rigors. Retrieved January 21, 2010,
from
http://www.olemisssports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=2600&ATCLID=14826
76

147

Scott, H. S. (2002). What game are they playing? A critique of the game of life. Speech presented
at the Sesquicentennial celebrating 150 years of Harvard intercollegiate athletics. Harvard
University, Boston.
Scott, W. R. (2003). Organizations: rational, natural, and open systems (Fifth ed.). Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Shulman, J. L., & Bowen, W. G. (2001). The game of life: College sports and educational
Values. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Solow, R. S. (1998). Faculty athletic committees as a source of intercollegiate athletic authority.
Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Georgia.
Southern State University Athletic Department. (SSU Athletics Department). (2008). NCAA
Division I athletics certification self-study instrument.
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 & Company.
Steeg, J. L., Upton, J., Bohn, P., & Berkowitz, S. (2008, November 19). College athletes studies
guided toward ‘major in eligibility’ USA Today. Retrieved from
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2008-11-18-majors-cover_N.htm
Stephens, N. (2007). Collecting data from elites and ultra elites: Telephone and face-to-face
interviews with macroeconomists. Qualitative research, 7(2), 203-218.
Stern, C. S. (2003). The faculty report in the reform of intercollegiate athletics. Academe, 89(1),
64-70.
Stevens, M. (2007). Creating a class: College admissions and the education of the elites.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sweitzer, K. (2009). Institutional ambitions and athletic conference affiliation. New Directions
for Higher Education(148), 55-63.
Thamel, P. (2006, July 13). For some athletes, courses with no classes. New York Times.
Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/13/sports/13cndauburn.html?ei=5090&en=8f01a6a3d956a923&ex=1310443200&partner=rssuserland&e
mc=rss&pagewanted=print
Thelin, J. R. (1994). Games colleges play: Scandal and reform in intercollegiate athletics.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

148

Thomas, C. (2006). A program evaluation of athletic academic support programs at two landgrant universities Tennessee State University, Nashville.
Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Toma, J. D. (2010). Building organizational capacity: Strategic management in higher
education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Toma, J. D. (2005). Amateur ideals, commercial realities, and strategic uses: Exploring the false
divide between spectator sports and the overall university. Phi Kappa Phi Forum, 85(3),
32-36.
Toma, J. D. (2003). Football U: Spectator sports in the life of the American university. Ann
Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Tratchtenberg, S. J. (2008). Big man on campus. New York: Touchstone.
Tublitz, N. (2009, January 4). It’s time to give academics top priority. Eugene Register-Guard.
Retrieved from http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/web/opinion/503896947/story.csp
Tysiak, K. (2011, August 2). Advocate says UNC let Michael McAdoo down. Raleigh News &
Observer. Retrieved from http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/08/02/1384557/mcadoois-not-isolated-case.html
U.S. Department of Education Office of Postsecondary Education. (USDOE). (2009). The equity
in athletics data analysis cutting tool. Retrieved from
http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/SelectDownloadOptions.aspx
Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. New York: Macmillan
Publishing, Co., Inc.
Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. In M. C. Brown II
(Ed.), Organization & governance in higher education (fifth ed., pp. 36-49). Boston:
Pearson Custom Publishing.
Weiss, R. (1995). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies.
New York: Simon & Schuster.
Westmeyer, P. (1990). Principles of governance and administration in higher education.
Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Wieberg, S. (2009, July 9). Athlete advisers fear new NCAA eligibility rules spur cheating. USA
Today.

149

Yin, R. K. (1984). Designing single and multiple case studies. In Case study research: Design
and methods (pp. 27-54). Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Zimbalist, A. (2001). Unpaid professionals: Commercialism and conflict in big-time college
sports. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

150