WWW“! HHMTJWHIWHI

3 1293 301007 5004

 

 

}V1531_J RETURNING MATERIALS:

. P1ace in book drop to
”BRAKES remove this checkout from
n your record. FINES will

 

 

 

be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

~.' .1
t. was“ .- or
151.. n’ ? 6 1.51%?-

, FE"11,VQ5§

 

 

AN EXAMINATION OF THE ROLE OF THE WOMAN ATHLETIC
ADMINISTRATOR IN THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES
REGARDING THE ADMINISTRATION AND GOVERNANCE

OF WOMEN'S INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS

BY

Christine W. Hoyles

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Educational Administration

1985

ABSTRACT
AN EXAMINATION OF THE ROLE OF THE WOMAN ATHLETIC
ADMINISTRATOR IN THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES

REGARDING THE ADMINISTRATION AND GOVERNANCE
OF WOMEN'S INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS

BY

Christine W. Hoyles

The purpose of this study was to examine the role of
the woman athletic administrator in the decision-making
processes regarding the administration and governance of
womends intercollegiate athletics. This was accomplished by
studying the role of the woman athletic administrator in the
decision-making processes related to the administration of
the institutional womenfis athletic program, the conference
in which the institutional women's athletic program

competed, and the national governance structure.

Procedure

 

The examination was conducted through the use of two
survey instruments which were developed to describe the
roles of the institutional National Collegiate Athletic
Association (NCAA) Primary Woman Administrator (PWA) and the
institutional Director of Athletics in the decision-making
processes regarding the administration and governance of
womenus intercollegiate athletics. The survey instruments

were mailed to the PWA and the Director of Athletics at each

Christine W. Hoyles

of the 284 member schools which comprised NCAA Division 1.
Participants were requested to answer questions which
described their roles in the decision-making processes at

the institutional, conference, and national levels.

Analysis of Data

 

The results were reported as they applied to each of
the seven purposes of the study. Where appropriate, the
results were reported in descriptive fornu Where hypotheses
were being tested, the results were reported using chi-
square values and comparative statistics such astflmaphi-
coefficient and Cramer's V. The level of statistical
significance established for this study was .05.

The data revealed that there was a significant
difference between the perceived roles of the Director of
Athletics and the woman athletic administrator at the
institutional, conference, and national levels.

The results showed that a significant difference
existed between the perceptions of the woman athletic
administrator and the Director of Athletics regarding the
role of the woman athletic administrator at the
institutional level but that no significant difference
existed at the conference or national levels.

The responses received also indicated that a
significant difference with the level of satisfaction with
the role of the woman athletic administrator did exist

between the Director of Athletics and the woman athletic

Christine W. Hoyles

administrator at the institutional, conference, and national

levels.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Dr. Eldon R. Nonnamaker, my
committee chairman and dissertation advisor for his
guidance, support, and patience. I would also like to
express my appreciation to my other committee members,
Eu. Richard Featherstone, [ha Lawrence Foster, and

Dr. Gwendolyn Norrell for their contributions to this study.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES O O O C O O O O C .

Chapter
1.

3.

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . .
Statement of the Problem
Focus of the Study . . .
Purposes of the Study .
Need for the Study . . .
Significance of the Study
Hypotheses . . . . . . . .
Definition of Terms . . .

Limitations and Delimitatio

Limitations . . . . . .
Delimitations . . . . .
Design of the Study . . .
Organization of the Study

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
1833-1890 .
1890-1900 .
1900-1910 .
1910-1930 .
1930-1957 .
1957-1968 .

1968-1972 .

1972-1974
1974-1976
1976-1978
1978-1981
1981-1984
Summary .

METHODOLOGY . . . . . .
Introduction . . . . .
Derivation of the Study
Population . . . . . . .
Sampling Procedures . .
Survey Instruments . . .
Data Collection . . . .
Coding and Data Entry .
Data Analysis Procedures

iii

n

5

vi

4. ANALYSIS OF DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Analysis of Procedures . . . . . . . . .
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Research Question 1 . . . . . . . . .
Section I-Institutional Decision-
Making Processes . . . . . . . . .
Section II-Conference Decision-
Making Processes . . . . . . . . .
Section III-National Decision-Making
Processes . . . . . . . . . . . .
Section IV-Demographic Information .
Research Question 2 . . . . . . . . .
Section I-Institutional Decision-
Making Processes . . . . . . . . .
Section II-Conference Decision-
Making Processes . . . . . . . . .
Section III-National Decision-Making
Processes . . . . . . . . . . . .
Section IV-Demographic Information .
Research Question 3 . . . . . . . . .
Section I-Institutional Decision-
Making Processes . . . . . . . . .
Section II-Conference Decision-
Making Processes . . . . . . . . .
Section III-National Decision-Making
Processes . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Research Question 4 . . . . . . . . .
Section I-Institutional Decision-
Making Processes . . . . . . . . .
Section II-Conference Decision-
Making Processes . . . . . . . . .
Section III-National Decision-Making
Processes . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Research Question 5 . . . . . . . . .
Research Question 6 . . . . . . . . .
Research Question 7 . . . . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5. SUMMARY, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS, AND

IMPLICATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Purposes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Findings and Concl sions . . . . . . . .
Implications for Further Research . . .

iv

100
100
101
101
101

102
106

108
111
111

111
115

116
118
118

119
122

123
126
126

126
129

130
131
132
135
136
137

138
138
139
140
141
142
143
146

APPENDICES

A. Letter of Approval from UCRIHS . . . . . . . . . 148
B. The Survey Instrument for the Primary Women

Administrators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
C. The Survey Instrument for th Directors of

Athletics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
D. The Initial Cover Letter and the Results

Request Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
E. Second Cover Letter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
F. Questionnaire Response Rates . . . . . . . . . . 185
G. Frequency Counts and Percentages for Responses

to Primary Woman Administrator Questionnaire . 186
H. Frequency Counts and Percentages for Responses

to Director of Athletics Questionnaire . . . . 242

BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 29 8

10.

11.

12.

13.

LIST OF TABLES

Response Percentages for Question 10 Regarding
Type of Involvement by the Primary Woman
Administrator in the Administration of
Areas in Women's Athletics . . . . . . . . . .

Attendance at NCAA Conventions by Primary
Women Administrators . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Participation at NCAA Conventions by Primary
Women Administrators . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Response Percentages for Question 4 Regarding
Type of Involvement by the Director of
Athletics in the Administration of Areas
in Women's Athletics . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Response Percentages for Question 5 Regarding
the Perception of the Director of Athletics
of the Role of the Primary Woman Administrator
in the Administration of Areas in Women's
Athletics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Attendance at NCAA Conventions by Directors of
Athletics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Participation at NCAA Conventions by Directors
of Athletics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Comparison of the Perceived Role of the Primary
Woman Athletic Administrator and the Director
of Athletics at the Institutional Level . . .

Comparison of the Perceived Roles of the Primary
Woman Athletic Administrator and the Director
of Athletics at the Conference Level . . . . .

Comparison of the Perceived Roles of the Primary
Woman Athletic Administrator and the Director
of Athletics at the National Level . . . . . .

Comparison of the Perceptions of the Primary
Woman Athletic Administrator and the Director
of Athletics Regarding the Role of the Primary
Woman Athletic Administrator . . . . . . . . .

Comparison of the Perceptions of the Primary
Woman Athletic Administrator and the Director
of Athletics Regarding the Role of the Primary
Woman Athletic Administrator . . . . . . . . .

Comparison of the Perceptions of the Primary
Woman Athletic Administrator and the Director
of Athletics Regarding the Role of the Primary
Woman Athletic Administrator . . . . . . . . .

vi

104
109

109

112

114
116

117

120

123

124

127

130

131

14. Satisfaction with the Impact on the Decision-

Making Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
15. Satisfaction and Structure of the Decision-

Making Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
16. Director of Athletics Satisfaction with Impact

of Primary Woman Athletic Administrator . . . . 136
17. Comparison of Satisfaction of the Primary Woman

Athletic Administrator and the Director of

Athletics with the Role of the Primary Woman

Athletic Administrator . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
18. Questionnaire Response Rates . . . . . . . . . . . 185
19.-
173. Frequency Counts and Percentages for Responses

to Primary Woman Administrator Questionnaire . . 186
174.-
334. Frequency Counts and Percentages for Responses

to Director of Athletics Questionnaire . . . . . 242

vii

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

From its first mention in historical records, partici-
pation.by women in athletic activities has been a subject
surrounded by controversy. Accounts of the early Greek
Olympics indicate that women were not permitted to partici-
pate in or even watch the games. They were, instead, often
promised as rewards for successful male participants.1

Aristocratic women of the Middle Ages participated to a
limited degree in early forms of games such as tennis and
golf. However, the long-standing view of feminine frailty
prevented serious participation. The role of the woman as a
childbearer overshadowed all other parts of life. Partici-
pation in athletic activities was thought to affect the
quality of the off-spring subsequently produced.2 Even in
early twentieth century America, women were thought to be
hearty enough for the demanding physical labor of the fields
yet "genuine women were physically weak."3

Just as participation by women in athletic activities

has been an extensively debated issue, the organization of

 

1Stephanie L. Twin, Out of the Bleachers (New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1979), p. xvi.

 

2Ibid., p. xviii.

3Ibid., p. xix.

women's athletic activities as they were established has
been a subject surrounded by controversy. First attempts to
organize and establish standards for the conduct of womenfis
sports date back to 1899 when the Conference on Physical
Training, held.in Springfield, Massachusetts, resulted in
the appointment of a committee to study the modification of
girls' basketball rules.4 Formal organization grew from
that point when the American Physical Education Association
formally appointed its Women's Athletic Committee.5

At institutions of higher education, opportunities for
participation in athletic activities by women centered
around physical education classes.6 Gymnastic activities and
walking made up the majority of the offerings. Women were
often left to organize their own sport activities. Early
accounts of organized competition or intercollegiate activi—
ties are non-existent.

From the early 19005 until the early 19605, women's
athletics received organizational direction from several

groups. The American Physical Education Association and the

National Amateur Athletic Federation both had subdivisions

 

V/4The Division for Girls and Women's Sports,
Philosophy and Standards for Girls and Women's Sports
(Washington, DAL: American Association for Health,
Physical Education, and Recreation, 1973), p. 3.

 

51bid.

V/ 6Betty Spears, "The Emergence of Women in Sport,” in
Women's Athletics: COping With Controversy, ed. Barbara J.
Hoepner (Washington, DAL: American Association for Health,
Physical Education, and Recreation, 1974), pc 26.

 

concerned with programs for women.7

During this period,
attitudes toward and societal acceptance of organized
women's participation in athletics ranged from totally
acceptable to totally'unacceptable. The womenfs subdivision
of the National Amateur Athletic Federation grew and became
a division of the American Association for Health, Physical
Education and Recreation (AAHPER).

In the early 19605, the Division for Girls and Womenfis
Sports (DGWS) of the AAHPER was the primary group
functioning in the area of the organization of women's
athletics. It was then that a radical change in philosophy
regarding competitive womenwsathletics became apparent.
The DGWS revised its primary policy statement to include the
encouragement of competitive athletics. This action led to
the development of increased opportunities for women's par-
ticipation in organized competition.8

The DGWS, realizing that the administration of orga-
nized competitive athletics at the collegiate level did not

fit within its own existing structure, established the

Commission for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women (CIAW).59

 

7The Division for Girls and Women's Sports,
Philosophy and Standards for Girls and Women's Sports
(Washington, DAL: American Association for Health,
Physical Education, and Recreation, 1973), p. 3.

 

8Lucil 1e Magnusson, "The Development of Programs," in
Women's Athletics: Coping With Controversy,
ed. Barbara J. Hoepner (Washington, ILC.: American Associa-
tion for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation, 1974),
p. 56.

 

91bid.

This group served to encourage the development of intercol-
legiate athletic competition at the local, state, and
regional levels as well as to organize DGWS collegiate
national championships as the need developed.

The rapid growth of women's intercollegiate athletic
programs at colleges and universities produced not only a
need for national championships but also a need for well-
organized leadership and governance of women's intercolle-
giate athletics. Without a framework of regulations for the
administration of womenfs intercollegiate athletic programs,
those programs could quickly become dissimilar enough to
preclude equitable competition. A national structure to
assure controlled development of these emergent programs and
to regulate the activitiescflfits member institutions was
needed.

To meet the growing needs for national championships
and governance, the CIAW became the Association for
Intercollegiate Athletics for Women (AIAW) in July, 1972.10
This group continued to administer the collegiate national
championship program and also emerged as the governance
organization for its member institutions. The AIAW was, as
were the DGWS and the CIAW, an organization developed by,
led by, and composed of women representing its member insti-
tutions.

On July 21, 1975, Title IX of the Education Amendments

of 1972 went into effect. That act required the elimination

 

lolbid.

of sex discrimination in federally assisted education
programs.11 As a result of its application, collegiate
level women's athletic programs grew very rapidly. The AIAW
became the largest collegiate athletic governance organiza-
tion in the United States.12

During the late 19705, there was growing dissatisfac-
tion among a segment of AIAW members. The dissatisfaction
stemmed from numerous AIAW rules, particularly those in the
areas of the distribution of athletic grants-in-aid and the
recruitment of prospective student-athletes, viewed by some
member institutions as severely limiting. At the same time,
the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) interest
in women's athletics began to be rekindled. Efforts to
become involved in women's championships had surfaced at the
1975 and 1976 NCAA Conventions. Both had been unsuccessful
but the perceived need for additional choices for member
institutions resulted in renewed NCAA action in the area of

women's championships and governance.13

Following much
debate and membership votes on the floors of the 1980 and

1981 AIAW Delegate Assemblies and the NCAA Conventions, the

 

11Margaret C. Dunkle, Competitive Athletics: In
Search of Equal Opportunity, (Washington, D.C.: United
States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1976),
p. 1.

 

 

12Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women,
AIAW Directory 1980-81 (Washington, DJL: Association for
Intercollegiate Athletics for Women, 1980), p. 2.

 

l3Randi J. Greenberg, "AIAW vs. NCAA: The Takeover and
Implications,”.Journal of the National Association for Women
Deans, Administrators, and Counselors, Winter 1984, p. 29.

 

 

membership of the NCAA approved the initiation of women's
national championships beginning in August, 1980. Also
approved at the 1981 Convention were the structures
necessary to govern women's intercollegiate athletics which
would be fully implemented by August 1, 19855L4

These NCAA actions resulted in a division of the insti-
tutions which had previously held membership in the AIAW
between that organization and the NCAA. During the 1981-82
academic year,txnfllorganizations sponsored comprehensive
slates of national championships and governed women's
athletics. Just prior to the start of the 1982-83 academic
year, the number of institutions which had discontinued
their memberships in AIAW’had grown to the point.where the
organization had lost significant corporate sponsorships and
faced certain financial insolvency. The AIAW then cancelled
its national championship program and'virtuallyrceased to

exist.

Statement of the Problem

 

The problem which was addressed in this study was an
examination of the role of the woman intercollegiate
athletic administrator in the institutional decision-making
processes related to the administration.and(governance of

women's ath l etics.

 

14The National Collegiate Athletic Association, 1981
Convention Proceedings (Shawnee Mission, Kansas: The
National Collegiate Athletic Association, 1981), p. A-59 &

A-63.

 

Focus of the Study

 

This study examined the role (HE the woman
intercollegiate athletic administrator in institutional
decision-making processes regarding administration and
governance. This was accomplished by studying the role of
the woman intercollegiate athletic administrator in the
decision-making process related to the administration of the
institutional women's athletic program, the conference in
which the institution's women's programs compete, and the
national governance system. While some comparisons were
drawn with the role played, by the Director of Athletics in
the same processes, this study did not describe, in the same
detail, the complete role of that individual. Likewise,
neither the roles of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) nor
the Faculty Representative were studied, but each was
briefly discussed in an attempt to clarify the role of the
woman administrator.

The impact of this issue on women's intercollegiate
athletics received significant attention. It was not within
the scope of this study to analyze the governance of men's

intercollegiate athletics to the same degree.

Purposes of the Study

 

The purposes this study attempted to achieve were to:

1. Describe the perceived role of the primary woman
athletic administrator in the institutional
decision-making processes regarding the

administration and governance of women's

intercollegiate athletics attflueinstitutional,
conference, and national levels.

Describe the perceived role of the Director of
Athletics in the institutional decision-making
processes regarding the administration and
governance of womenwsintercollegiate athletics at
the institutional, conference, and national
levels.

Compare the perceived roles of the primary woman
athletic administrator and the Director of
Athletics in the institutional decision-making
processes regarding the administration and
governance of womenksintercollegiate athletics at
the institutional, conference, and national
levels.

Compare the perceptions of the Director of
Athletics regarding the role of the primary woman
athletic administrator in the institutional
decision-making processes regarding the
administration and governance of womenfs intercol-
legiate athletics at the institutional,
conference, and national levels with the percep-
tions of the primary woman athletic administrator
of her role in the same processes.

Determine the level of satisfaction of the primary
woman athletic administrator with her role in the

institutional decision-making processes regarding

the administration and governance of women's
intercollegiate athletics attflmzinstitutional,
conference, and national levels.

6. Determine the level of satisfaction of the
Director of Athletics with the role of the primary
woman athletic administrator in the institutional
decision-making processes regarding the
administration and governance of women's intercol—
legiate athletics at the institutional,
conference, and national levels.

7. Compare the satisfaction of the primary woman
athletic administrator with her role in the insti-
tutional decision-making processes regarding the
administration and governance of women's intercol-
legiate athletics at the institutional,
conference, and national levels with the satisfac-
tion of the Director of Athletics with the role of
the primary woman athletic administrator in the

same processes.

Need for the Study

 

During the development of the mechanism for the NCAA
governance of womenfs athletics and since the implementation
of that mechanism, there has been criticism of the apparent
lessened involvement of women in the institutional decision-
making processes regarding administration and governance.

During the existence of the AIAW, each member institution

10

had designated a Voting Representative, appointed by the
CEO, who cast the vote of that institution on each issue at
the AIAW Convention. Other responsibilities of that Voting
Representative included the certification of student-athlete
eligibility and the administratjrnlof compliance with the
regulations of the organization. The AIAW Voting
Representatives were primarily women and largely women
administrators in athletics.

The NCAA system of institutional representation
included the CEO of each member institution as the primary
voting delegate. A Faculty Representative, who could cast
the institutional vote in place of the CEO, was also a part
of the structure. A third voting delegate was the Director
of Athletics. The CEOs, the Faculty Representatives, and
the Directors of Athletics of NCAA member institutions had
largely been men.

Upon the inclusion of the governance of women's
athletics in the scope of the NCAA in 1981, the position of
Primary Woman Administrator (PWA) was developed to help
ensure the representation of women at the NCAA Convention
and in the legislative processes. This role was to be
fil led by the woman at each member institution who had the
most significant amount of responsibility in the administra-
tion of the women's intercollegiate athletic program. In
practice, the role of the PWA was most often fil led by the

woman who had been the AIAW Voting Representative.

11

While it appears that the PWA has been accorded the
majority of the privileges and responsibilities of the
Director of Athletics in the NCAA structure, it is also
apparent that the role of the PWA in the decision-making
processes on the individual campuses of member institutions
differ dramatically. In many cases, the PWAs appear to have
significant input in the development of the institutional
position on NCAA issues. In other instances, PWAs appear to
have little or no real input. The position of the PWA was
initially developed by the NCAA to provide an avenue for
women to speak on the floor of the Convention and to
exercise voting privileges. Personal attendance at recent
NCAA Conventions has shown, however, that many women who
hold the position of PWA have not been authorized by insti-
tutional CEOs to receive the credentials necessary'to use

speaking and voting privileges.

Significance of the Study

 

Although there has been some speculation as to the
impact of NCAA governance of women's intercollegiate
athletics on women administrators, little formal study has
been done in the area. This study will make a contribution
to individuals, institutions, or associations wishing to
determine whether the role of the woman administrator in
intercollegiate athletics has been enhanced or diminished in
the decision-making processes on administration and

governance issues.

12

Additionally, this study may provide the basis for
further study into the role of the PWA within the NCAA. Has
this position been implemented as it was developed to be?
Does the NCAA structure and incorporation of their position
into that structure place barriers before women athletic
administrators which limit professional growth? Has the
definition of the role of the PWA expanded professional
opportunities for women in athletic administration? The
answers to these and other questions may come directly or

indirectly from this study.

Hypotheses

 

The emergence of the NCAA as the primary governance
organization in womenfs intercollegiate athletics has led to
questions as to the impact of the woman intercollegiate
athletic administrator under that organization. Women
administrators in intercollegiate athletics currently appear
to have less involvement in institutional policy decisions
regarding governance than they did under the AIAW structure.
To examine the current impact of the woman administrator in
the administration and governance of womenfs intercollegiate
athletics, three hypotheses were developed and stated in the
null form. The hypotheses tested in this study were:
Hypothesis 1: There is no significant difference between

the perceived role of the primary woman
athletic administrator in the institutional
decision-making processes regarding the

administration and governance of women's

Hypothesis 2:

Hypothesis 3:

13

intercollegiate athletics at the
institutional, conference, and national
levels and the perceived role of the Director
of Athletics in the same processes.

There is no significant difference between
the perceptions of the Director of Athletics
regarding the role of the primary woman
athletic administrator and the perceptions of
the primary'woman athletic administrator of
her own role.

There is no significant difference between
the satisfaction of time primary woman
athletic administrator with her role and the
satisfaction of the Director of Athletics
with the role of the primary woman athletic

administrator.

Definition of Terms

 

The following important terms will be used throughout

this study and are defined to ensure clarity and continuity

for the reader.

1. Conference —- an established group of institutions

formed for the purpose of intercollegiate athletic

competition.

2. Decision-making process -- "The systematic putting

together of facts and experience to produce a

better judgement. The organization of the relevant

14

information into a form that can be clearly

understood and handled in the making of a choice.

It is the manipulation of information so that a

series of needed comparisons can be made.”15

3. Faculty Representative -- a member of the faculty
of each NCAA member institution appointed by the
CEO to certify student-athlete eligibility,
administer athletic financial aid, and to assist in
the maintenance of adequate controls in an institu-
tionfls intercollegiate athletic program.

4. Intercollegiate Athletics -- sport competition by
students and/or teams from one college or
university against students and/or teams from
another college or university.

5. Member Institutions -— those colleges and universi-
ties who, for the purpose of regulating their
intercollegiate athletic programs, have joined the
AIAW and/or the NCAA.

6. Primary Woman Administrator -- an employee of each
NCAA member institution who has the most
significant amount of responsibility in the
administration of the women's intercollegiate

athletic program.

 

15Charles H. Kepner and Benjamin B. Tregoe, The
Rational Manager (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1965),
p. 180.

 

15

7. Role -- "those behaviors characteristic of one or
more persons in a context."16

8. Voting Representative -- an employee of each AIAW
member institution appointed by the CEO to certify
student-athlete eligibility, athletic financial aid
administration, and to oversee the application of
AIAW rules on the womenfs intercollegiate athletic

program.

Limitations and Delimitations

 

Limitations

The major limitation of this study was the reliance on
self-reported data from participating individuals as the
basis for the conclusions drawn. Since the information
provided on the survey instrument and the actual practice at
any participating institution may differ, findings of this
study must be evaluated with that in mind.

A second limitation of this study was the method of
gathering data. A survey instrument was mailed to selected
institutions. The returned responses may not constitute a
representative sample. A third limitation of this study was
the inability of the researcher to be certain that the
individual to whom each questionnaire was sent actually
completed the instrument rather than instructing someone

else to do so. If such a situation did occur, the

 

16Bruce J. Biddle, Role Theory: Expectations, Identi-
ties, and Behaviors (New York: Academic Press, 1979), p. 58.

 

 

16

responses may or may not represent the feelings of the
person to whom the questionnaire was originally directed.
Delimitations
The sample for this study was drawn from Division I
NCAA member institutions. The findings of this study cannot
accurately describe the activity at non-Division I NCAA

member institutions or non-NCAA member institutions.

Design of the Study

 

To accomplish tflua purposes described, two survey
instruments were developed. One instrument was designed to
describe the role of the NCAA PWA in the institutional
decision-making processes relative to the administration and
governance of women's athletics at the institutional,
conference, and national Shavels. The second instrument was
designed to evaluate the role of the Director of Athletics
in the same processes and to describe his/her perceptions of
the role of the PWA in those same processes.

The population for this study was NCAA member
institutions which hold membership in Division I in 1984-85.
The entire membership of the division was surveyed.

Survey instruments were mailed separately to NCAA PWAs
and Directors of Athletics at those institutions selected
for participation. Those instruments were each accompanied
by a cover letter to the participant requesting their
participation in the study and a return envelope.
Individual responses remained confidential and this was

indicated in the cover letter. Return envelopes were,

17

however, coded to permit the follow-up necessary to maximize
the response rate. Instruments not returned in two weeks
were identified and second requests for participation in the
study were sent along with a second c0py of the survey
instrument.

The data collected were analyzed using descriptive and

comparative techniques.

Organization of the Study

 

This study is reported in five chapters. Chapter 1
includes the introduction, the statement of the problem, the
focus of the study, the purposes of the study, the need for
the study, the significance of the study, the hypotheses to
be tested, the definitions of terms, the limitations and
delimitations, the design of the study, and a description of
the organization of the study.

Chapter 2 includes a review of the literature
concerning the history of intercollegiate athletics with
particular emphasis on the governance of those programs.

Chapter 3 describes the design of the study. The
population and sampling procedures, the construction and
content of the survey instruments used in the study, and the
methodology employed in the analysis of the data gathered in
the study will be explained.

Chapter 4 contains the findings of the study.

Chapter 5 contains a summary of the study as well as

conclusions and recommendations.

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The governance of women's intercollegiate athletics
has been the responsibility of a number of different formal
and informal organizations since the beginning of the
programs. The following is a description of the history of
the governance of women's intercollegiate athletic programs
and the evolution of the form of governance in use today.

For the purpose of this study, the review of
literature has been divided into major chronological periods
of development. The description of each major period
includes not only information relative to governance but
also a summary of the status of women in sports during that
time. In addition, descriptions of major historical events
which have influenced collegiate sports for women are

included.

1833 -1890

 

The history of women's intercollegiate sports began
during the period of 1833-1890 with the founding of many
women's colleges. Betty Spears, a noted historian from
Wellesley College and the University of Massachusetts,
indicated that sport itself played a special role in the

founding of those institutions. Prior to the development of

18

19

women's colleges, the idea of higher education for women was
countered by two major objections. Women, Spears found,
were thought to be mentally inferior to men. Additionally,
they were thought to possess too little physical strength to
withstand the rigors of college level study and daily
classes.1

Much of this period was part of the Victorian Era.
Ideal women of this time were expected to embody the concept
of fragility. The image of delicacy as an accepted way of
life was one which was fostered by fashion designers,
clergymen, physicians, and journalists. Women of this era
were expected to participate in sedentary indoor activities
such as embroidery and painting on glass. Physical activity
was limited by the costumes of the times. Women wore
tightly laced corsets, bustles, hoops, and yards of trailing
skirts.2

The ultimate goals of Victorian women were to attract

a man and to bear children.3

Spears'research.showed that
Victorian women accepted ill health.as a way of life and
that most were plagued by a monthly illness known as "the

vapors". The fact that 45 percent of all women suffered

 

lBetty Spears, "The Emergence of Women in Sport," in
Women's Athletics: Coping With Controversy, ed. Barbara J.
Hoepner (Washington, ILC.: American Association for Health,
Physical Education, and Recreation, 1974), p. 27

21bid.
3E1 len W. Gerber et al., The American Woman in Sport

(Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company,
1974)! p0 120

20

from menstrual cramps and another 20 percent from assorted
ills indicated that the normal collegiate program of studies
would have to be altered for 65 percent of all women. This
was used by Opponents of higher education for women to
justify the denial of opportunity in that area. Spears also
found research which indicated that overstudy by women would
result in brain fever making them weak and unable to bear
children.4

The latter half of the nineteenth century marked the
beginning of a change in the Victorian ideals. This was due
in part to the beginning of the feminist movement signalled
by the Seneca Falls Convention on Women's Rights which was
held in 1848. By the late 18605 women began to participate
in sedate activities such as croquet, archery, bowling, lawn
tennis, and golf. Activities of this era, according to
Gerber, had three things in common. First, they could be
performed without working up a sweat. Second, they could be
performed graceful 1y. And third, they were performed
primarily by upperclass women who had the leisure time and
money available to make participation possible.5

The primary purpose of sport participation for women

early in its development was the creation of an acceptable

social encounter for men and women. Hence, most activities

 

4Spears, ”The Emergence of Women in Sport," p. 27.

5Ellen W. Gerber, "The Changing Female Image: A Brief
Commentary on Sport Competition for Women,"
Journal of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation,
October 1971, p. 59.

 

21

were coeducational. The development of the womends<ualleges
were responsible for the movement from coeducational
activities to separate sports for men and women.6 In 1865,
Matthew Vassar planned a special school for instruction in
physical activities suitable for women. He believed that
good health was necessary for successful study. When Henry
Durant founded Wellesley College in 1875, he carried on
Vassar's idea of the important relationship between quality
mental work and regular physical activity.7

The development of physical activity programs for
women led to the development of team sports. Football was

played by women at the University of California in 1878.

Wellesley taught crew in 1890.8

1890 - 1900

 

The introduction of the safety bicycle, with.its two
lower wheels and drop frame in the mid-18805, opened the
world of physical activity to many more women. The bicycle
also significantly influenced the apparel for sportswomen.

By the early 18905, women cyclists were wearing dresses

 

6Gerber et al., The American Woman in Sport, p. 6.
7Spears, “The Emergence of Women in Sport", p. 28.

81bid., p. 30.

22

without corsets, as well as blouse anui skirt
outfits.9

A leisurely fashion of playing sports was dictated by
the long, ful l skirts and many petticoats worn by women of
the mid-nineteenth century. This mode of dress gave way to
a more functional style in the late 18805 which included
divided skirts or bloomers and middy blouses. This style of
dress allowed for greater freedom of movement which impacted
the nature of sport activities for women.10

Competitive sport for women at the collegiate level
was well established by the 18905. Sports were defined as
recreational physical activities characterized by
competition, criteria for ascertaining a winner, codified
rules, formal instruction for players and teams, as well as
institutional organization.11 Contests took place within
colleges rather than between them. The primary competitive

vehicle was interclass competition.12

 

9Richard A. Swanson, "From Glide to Stride:
Significant Events in a Century of American Womenfls Sports,“
in Women's Athletics: Copirg With Controversy, ed. Barbara
J. Hoepner (Washington, ILC.: American Association for
Health, Physical Education, and Recreation, 1974), p. 45.

 

10Deobold B. VanDalen and Bruce L. Bennett,
A World History of Physical Education (Englewood, N.J.:
Prentice Hall, Inc., 1971), p. 422.

 

11George, H. Sage, ed., Sport and American Society
(Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.,
1970), p.4.

12Gerber et al., The American Woman in Sport, p. 56.

23

In 1892, the game of basketball was formulated by Dr.
James Naismith. It was quickly introduced to women at Smith
College by Senda Berenson. She developed extensive
interclass competition but did not advocate intercollegiate

13 Loggia quoted Berenson as saying "competitive

events.
sports where a player becomes excited is beneficial to the
nerves, heart, and lungs".14 The game spread rapidly across
the United States and intercollegiate competition was first
recorded in 1896 between the University of California-
Berkley and Stanford University as well as between the
University of Washington and the Ellensburg Normal School.15

Gerber indicated that intercollegiate sport for women
was not a controversial issue until basketball was
introduced at Smith College. The general philosophy of the
time was that sport participation was good for women but
participation in schools was best because it lowered the

physical risk for competitors.16

However, as
intercollegiate competition became more commonplace,
antagonism toward it began to build.17 Gerber noted that

the beginning of basketball competition marked the start of

a period in the history of women's sports which was

 

13Spears, "The Emergence of Women in Sport," p. 32.

14Marjorie Loggia, "On the Playing Fields of History,
Ms., July 1973, p. 63.

15Gerber et al., The American Woman in Sport, p. 62.

 

151bid., p. 69.

17Ibid., p. 63.

24

permeated by never-ending debate about the values and
practices of competition.18
Holbrook noted that the origination of basketball

19 In

changed the sports scene for women in marked ways.
June 1899, the Conference on Physical Training was held in
Springfield, Massachusetts and the Women's Basketball Rules
Committee (WBRC) was appointed to investigate the various
rules modifications being used by institutions of higher
education. The committee, led by Senda Berenson, developed
a standardized set of rules. This conference marked the
beginning of standardized conduct of women's sports as well
as the beginning of governance of the programs.20

During this period of increasing participation,
leadership for women's sports was provided by college
physical directors. Where no women were available to take
leadership roles, men stepped in to provide participation
experiences for women. As the enthusiasm for these sports

spread, the quality of the leadership was not always the

highest. Coffey suggested that "thus the first seed was

 

18Gerber, ”The Changing Female Image," p. 60.

19Leona Holbrook, "Women's Participation in American
Sport,"in Athletics in America, ed. Arnold Flath
(Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon State University, Press, 1972),
p.46.

 

20Division for Girls and Women's Sports,
Philosophy and Standards for Girls and Women's Sports
(Washington, DJL: American Association for Health,
Physical Education, and Recreation, 1973). P. 3.

 

25

planted for the ever-present controversy regarding the
extent of sports competition for women.”21

By 1900, sports instruction was an integral part of
most physical education programs. Facilities for
participation were being built and college faculties were
being increased in size to provide the necessary
instruction. 'The most important development of this era was
the decreased interest in the gymnastic, or calisthenic,

aspect of physical education which was coupled with the

increased interest in sport activities.22

1900 - 1910

 

The early 19005 found women competing in the<31ympic
Games although the United States had no female participants
until 1920.23 In the United States, President Theodore
Roosevelt. advocated. the ”strenuous life” and INA;
participation in sport activities helped to enhance the
credibility of sports participation and fitness. The
general interest in sports and fitness which grew during the
Roosevelt presidency included acceptance of programs for

both men and women.24

 

21Margaret A. Coffey, ”The Sportswoman,"
Journal of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation,
February 1965, p. 39

22Spears, "The Emergence of Women in Sport," p. 36.

23Gerber, 'The Changing Female Image,” p. 60.

24Holbrook, 'Womenfls Participation in American Sport,”
p. 47.

26

By 1910, sport was the dominant element of the
physical education curriculum at most institutions. Values
other than health were being explored as benefits of
participation. Beauty, grace, courage, enjoyment, as well
as social and professional success were benefits thought to
be derived from participation in sport. This broad range of
study indicated complete acceptance of sport in physical

education.25

1910 - 1930

 

By 1910, sports progranm for college women had grown
both.:h1 Size and scope. Unlike nmn's intercollegiate
athletics where programs were organized and conducted by
students, women's programs were under the tight control of
physical educators. Since all three aspects of the physical
education program (curricular, intramural, and
intercollegiate) were under the control of professional
educators, women's programs developed in unified, controlled
patterns. There was very little external interference and a
common philosophy dominated.26

As the women's sports programs grew in complexity, the
American Physical Education Association (APEA) appointed a
committee to set standards for women's activities. The

Committee on Women's Athletics (CWA), constituted in 1917,

 

25Spears, “The Emergence of Women in Sport,';nL 37-
38.

26Gerber et al., The American Woman in Sport, pp. 48-
50.

27

was appointed to broaden the work of the WBRC which
functioned as a sub-committee of the CWA. Elizabeth
Burchenal, the first CWA chairman, sought to have the
committee provide assistance to colleges regarding problems
with athletic activities for women. By 1922, five sport
sub-committees which made, revised, and interpreted rules
were functioning within the CWA. The committee functioned
as part of the APEA (the forerunner of the present American
Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and
Dance; AAHPERD) from 1917 to 1922 with little fanfare.27
Organized opposition to women's competitive sports
began to appear in 1917. Prior to that time, a minority of
the women physical educators tried to convince the country
that competition was injurious to the health of women
participants. While that belief affected the types of
activities available to women, it did not eliminate

competitive activities entirely.28

The development of the
Athletic Conference of American College Women (ACACW) in
1917, however, gave structure to the arguments against
competition for women.29

World War I and the ratification of the 19th Amendment
resulted in great gains for women's sports. Gerber stated

that in the times of the greatest American stress, women

 

27Ellen W; Gerber, "The Controlled Development of
Collegiate Sport for Women 1923-1936," Journal of Sport

History, Spring 1975, p. 5.

 

28Gerber et al., The American Woman in Sport, p. 16.

29Swanson, "From Glide to Stride," p. 49.

28

have made big strides simply because the country could not
afford to ignore the talents of one-half of its population.
During the early 19205, great changes were seen in the
attitudes of the American public toward women. This era
produced America's first heroines such as Amelia Earhart,
Gertrude Ederle, and Mildred "Babe" Didrikson.30

In 1922, the Amateur Athletic Union (AAU) legislated
to provide competitive opportunities for women athletes.
This action followed initial involvement by the AAU in 1914
and so angered women physical educators that they refused to
serve on AAU committees. The source of this anger was the
fact that coaches of high-level female competitors rarely
were women, since women had had so little coaching

experience.31

Gerber also stated that the women physical
educators felt that they were the only group with the proper
expertise and interest in the welfare of women to govern
women's sports. The physical educators contended that women
participating in AAU events were being exploited and
exhibited in a manner unfitting to the feminine image.32

In an attempt to unite men and women for the purpose
of formulating principles, standards and regulations in

athletics, the National Amateur Athletic Federation (NAAF)

was established in 1923. AlChiEf organizing group in the

 

30Gerber et al., The American Woman in Sport, pp. 18-
20.

31Gerber, 'The Controlled Development of Collegiate
Sport for Women 1923-1936," pp. 6-7.

32Gerber, "The Changing Female Image,” p. 60

29

formation of the NAAF was the War Department which saw an
opportunity to promote the improvement of the general
physical condition of the country. The Womenfls Division of
the NAAF was headed by Mrs. Herbert Hoover and was led by an
executive committee of women physical educators who were all
active in the CWA. The Womenfs Division served to encourage
sports activities for girls and women and to ensure the
proper conduct and supervision of those activities. The
membership was broad based, had wide geographic
distribution, and reached most groups concerned with women's
sports33.

The APEA, the ACACW, and the Womenfs.Division of the
NAAF favored play days as a substitute for women's
intercollegiate activities. This type of activity started
on the West Coast in 1926 and became very popular.34 In
play days, women from participating schools were divided
into teams which had no more than one player from each
school. Competition took place between the teams but the
primary purpose of the participation was for enjoyment.
There were no rewards to inspire competitive drive. Play

days were said to foster friendship among the participants.

 

33Division for Girls and'WomenWsSports, Philosophy
and Standards for Girls and Women's Sports, p. 3.

 

34Mabel Lee, 'The Case For and Against Intercollegiate
Athletics for Women and the Situation Since 1923,” Research

Quarterly, May 1931, p. 108.

30

Opponents of play days indicated that they distracted from
the students' academic pursuits.35

The attire of the 19205 increased womenfls mobility.
The yardage of women's garments was reduced by one-half.
Gymnasium bloomers were replaced by knickerbockers. One
piece bathing suits, abbreviated to expose arms and limbs,
were fashionable.36

Despite all of the progress which had been made by
women in sports, the image of the sportsminded woman was
slightly tarnished. The poor leadership given to certain
programs resulted in displays of emotionalism and unladylike
conduct in full view of the American public. The APEA, the
ACACW, and the Womenfs Division of the NAAF began to gather
support for their positions against intercollegiate
competition for women. Mabel Lee reported that the number
of colleges, which sponsored intercollegiate competition
drOpped from 22 percent in 1923 to 12 percent in 1930.37

Collegiate play days were regularly replacing

intercollegiate competition. Ryan, in The Literature of

 

American School and College Athletics, discussed the issue
of intercollegiate competition for women:

Considerable difference of opinion prevails as to
the desirability of inter-institutional athletic

 

35Howard J. Savage, John T. McGovern, and Harold W.
Bentley, Current Developments in American College Sport
(Boston: The Merrymount Press, 1931), p. 7.

36Coffey, ”The Sportswoman," p. 39.

37Lee, "The Case For and Against Intercollegiate
Athletics for Women," p. 122.

31

contests for girls and women, with a strong trend
at present against such contests, notwithstanding
the insistence of a small group that girls and
women are as capable~p§ athletic competition as
boys and need It more.

In 1928, American women participated in track and
field events in the Olympic Games for the first time.
Representatives of the three governing organizations
criticized the involvement of women in that competitive
setting under the auspices of the AAU. The criticism
revolved around action that appeared to be in direct
opposition to the platform statement of the 1923 Conference
on Athletics and Physical Education for Women and Girls.
That statement, while it did not ban high-level competition,
encouraged the development of programs where all could
participate rather than those involving the training ofaa
select few.39

The late 19205 found larger numbers of women physical
educators opposing intercollegiate competition.for‘women.
The professionals continued to have tremendous influence
because they controlled the activity programs, the sports
programs, and the professional preparation programs for
col legiate women. They were, therefore, able to produce a

large body of professionals which held to a fairly

consistent phiIOSOphy. During these times, teams sponsored

 

38W. Carson Ryan Jr., The Litgrature of American
School and College Athletics (Boston: The Merrymount Press,
1929), p. xi.

 

39Gerber et al., The American Woman in Sport, p. 73.

32

by business and industry contributed to the development of
sports for women while the physical educators pretended not

to notice their existence.40

1930-1957

 

The Great Depression sharply impacted the role of
women in American society. In great numbers, they returned

to the more traditional role of a woman. Women eagerly

sought the security of marriage.41

The inability of women to cope with pressure and
stress was a recurrent theme of this time. In 1933, Agnes
Wayman, President of the APEA, characterized the feeling of
the period:

External stimuli such as cheering audiences,
bands, lights, etc., cause a great response in
girls and are apt to upset the endocrine balance.
Under emotional stressaagirl may easily overdo.
There is widespread agreement that girls should
not be exposed to extremes of fatigue or strain
either emotional (n: physical..u In addition,
custom and good taste should always influence in
questioni2cnf public display, costumes,
publicity.

The increase in opposition to competitive athletics

for women was coupled with growing condemnation of men's

 

40William H. Freeman, "Controlling Athletics in
Education: History and Perspective," paper presented at the
pre-Convention Symposium on the History of Sport and
Physical Education of the American Association for Health,
Physical Education, and Recreation, Kansas City, Missouri,
April 1978, p. 13.

41Coffey, 'The Sportswoman," p. 40.

42Loggia, ”On the Playing Fields of History," p. 64.

33

athletics. Mabel Lee, in 'The Case For and Against
Intercollegiate Athletics for Women and the Situation Since
1923," expressed a fear that once women's intercollegiate
athletics were commonly accepted on campuses, college women

might become involved in the same problems related to

athletic participation as men.43

Coffey stated:

The impact of women's leadership in sports
programs was more fully realized as increasing
numbers of professionals entered the teaching
field. However, there were conflicts in
leadership in certain sections of the country and
many sportswomen were under the jurisdiction of
programs patterned on men's athletics. The
guardians of morality had lived through the
ballyhoo years, evidencing the emotionalism, the
commercialism, the mannish attitude and the
exploitation of the sportswoman under misguided
leadership. Fundamentalists cried (nu: for a
return to sanity. The mannerisms of the sports
woman Secame both an educational and public
issue.4

The CWA of the APEA had evolved into the Section on
Women's Athletics (SWA) by 1927 when it became evident to
women physical educators that they needed more status and
power fol lowing the AAU attempt to control women's sports.
By 1932, the SWA had become the National Section on Womenfis
Athletics (NSWA) with the reorganization of the APEA. This

group had taken over the promotion of women's athletics in

 

43Lee, "The Case For and Against Intercollegiate
Athletics for Women,“ p. 124.

44Coffey, 'The Sportswoman,” p. 40.

34

earnest.45

Under the leadership of this group, telegraphic
meets and sports day competition peaked. Telegraph meets
involved competition on a team's own campus, sending the
results by telegraph to the team from another school which
had also competed in its own campus, comparison of the
results, and determination of winners. Sport days were much
like play days except there was no mixing of teams. Playing
rules were changed to accommodate the time available for the
event which resulted in distorted contests. These
activities were established to fill 13M; void when the
negative attitudes of most women physical educators lead to
the end of virtually all other forms of competition.46

In 1933, the ACACW changed its name to the Athletic
Federation of College Women (AFCW). While the name of the
organization changed, the function of the group remained the
same: to oppose competitive athletics for women. During
this period, the Women's Division of the NAAF had become
affiliated with the APEA and, in 1940, it merged with the
NSWA.‘47 Scott reported that: "In 1943, about 16 percent of
the colleges, mainly in the east, had varsity teams.
Eighty-one percent had some sort of extramural activity,

largely as play days or by telegraph. The latter were

 

45Freeman, "Controlling Athletics in Education,”
p. 12.

46Gerber et al., The American Woman in Sport, p.66.

47VanDalen and Bennett, A World History of Physical
Education, p. 492.

 

 

35

t3.48

especially popular in the wes Women physical educators

were doing little to promote varsity programs and much to
oppose them.

During the 19305 and 19405, there were very few
Opportunities for girls and women to meet high-level
competition on a regular basis. Additionally, there was
little opportunity for gifted female athletes to receive
advanced training unless they trained with men or could
afford private instruction or membership in specialized
clubs. Swanson described the efforts of schools of this
period:

There is no doubt that the vast majority of
schools and colleges attempted to offer basic
instruction and competition to the mass of girls
under their direction as per the recommended
standards of the watchdog agencies. However, in
retrospect, it is obvious that little or no
provision was made for the gifted athlete, or even
the average woman who wanted to reach her maximum
potential through advanced instruction and
competitive experience. The very’ worthy
objectives based upon very real fears and concerns
of controlling groups, while protecting people
from over-abuse, at the same time denied large
numbers of girls and women over a period of two
generations, 4t9he opportunity to achieve full
actualization. -

In 1941, Gladys Palmer of Ohio State University
proposed the formation of a Women's College Athletic
Association to provide intercollegiate athletics for women.

The first event to be sponsored by this group was a national

 

48M.Gladys Scott, ”Competition for Women in American
Colleges and Universities,“ Researchguarterly, May 1945,
pp. 70-71.

 

49Swanson, ”From Glide to Stride," p. 51.

36

collegiate golf tournament atCflflx>State University. The
National Association of Physical Education for Women
(NAPECW) moved to prevent the formation of such a group but
the tournament was played despite the opposition of a
majority of the women's professional organizations.50
Shortly after the tournament was played, the “Tripartite
Golf Committee” was formed to assume organizational
responsibility for that annual event. Three organizations,
the ARFCW, the DGWS, and the NAPECW, had representatives on
the committee.

Heusner noted:

World War II reopened industry to women and
emphasized the need for every girl and woman to be
physically fit. Physical educators accepted this
need as their responsibility but an indoctrinated
generation of professional leaders refused to
accept inter-school sports as a logical vehicle
for the task. Intramural sports developed and
flourished, but there still was no avenue open for
the highly skilled girl to realifie her potential
within the educational framework.

By the end of World War II, the role of the American
woman had been greatly enlarged. She continued to be a
homemaker but was in a position of more equal responsibility
with men due to her emancipation in the 19205, her ability

to supplement the family budget during the depression, and

her fortitude in times of war. The period following World

 

50Freeman, ”Controlling Athletics in Education,”
p. 14.

51W. W. Heusner, "Basic Physiological Concepts as They
Relate to Girls' Sports," National Institute on Girls'
Sports, September 28, 1965, p. 1. (Mimeographed.)

37

War II has been characterized more by the feminization of
the male than by a change in the female role.52

During the 19505, the governance structure for womenus
athletics underwent several changes. In the years following
World War II, intercollegiate competition began to be more
acceptable to women physical educators provided it took
place in accordance with the strict guidelines published by
the governing bodyu By 1951, however, only 28 percent of
colleges had intercollegiate teams for women which suggests
that women physical educators were far out of touch with the
interests and desires of their students.53

In 1953, the NSWA became the National Section for
Girls' and Women's Sports (NSGWS). In 1957, this section
became a division of the American Association for Health,
Physical Education, and Recreation (AAHPER). No other
division of the AAHPER had so much direct influence on the
day to day functioning of its members as did the Division
for Girls' and WOmen's Sports (DGWS). The DGWS policy
statement, bowing to reality, indicated that intercollegiate
sports programs may exist. In 1958, one-third of all

colleges were offering these programs for women.54

 

52Coffey, "The Sportswoman," p. 41.

53Freeman, "Controlling Athletics in Education,"
p. 14.

54Gerber et al., The American Woman in Sport, p. 25.

38

1957-1968

 

The 1958 policy statement of the DGWS reaffirmed the
organization's support of sport days, play days, and
telegraphic meets. The philosophy of the time was 'a girl
for every sport, and a sport for every girl."55
Intercollegiate activities were approved of by the DGWS only
if they did not conflict with the intramural and extramural
programs. That 1958 policy statement also pointed out that
women could take advantage of opportunities to compete in
sports sponsored by non-school agencies.56

In 1959, the AFCW expanded its function and changed
its name to the Athletic and Recreation Federation of
College Women (ARFCW). By that time, the growth of women's
intercollegiate sport demanded that new attention be given
to its organization and regulation. The tri-partite
organizations, the ARFCW, the DGWS, and the NAPECW, formed
the National Joint Committe on Extramural Sport for College
Woman (NJCESCW) to sanction intercollegiate competition for
women. Events that brought college teams together,
including the Women's National Golf Tournament were reviewed

by that committee. It also established some standards for

 

55Lucille Magnusson, "The Development of Programs,':h1
Women's Athletics: COping With Controversy, ed. Barbara J.
Hoepner (Washington, ILC.: American Association for Health,
Physical Education, and Recreation, 1974), p. 55.

 

56Division for Girls and Women's Sports, Standards in
Sports for Girls and ngen (Washington, ILC.: American
Association for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation,
1958), pp. 46-51.

 

 

39

57

such events. It is recognized astflmafirst organization

to attempt to guide and administer womenfis intercollegiate
athletic programs exclusively.58

Wilma Rudolph won three gold medals in the 1960
Olympic Games in Rome. Rudolph, an attractive woman, did
much to dispel the feeling that athletic training by women
produced unsightly muscles. This long-held stereotype was
destroyed, in part, by the television coverage of Rudolph
and her performances. Television had long covered men's
sports but, in the early 19605, it discovered womenfis
sports. The number of televised womenis events grew slowly
but the acceptance of women's athletics, by both men and
women, was aided by that exposure.59

In addition to strides in the competitive arenas,
women were beginning to be included in the Olympic
governance structure. A Women's Board, which functioned
under the auspices of the United States Olympic Development
Committee (USODC) was formed in 1961. The AAHPER, which
held one seat on the United States Olympic Committee (USOC),
supported the inclusion of DGWS representatives on Sports

Committees which dealt with women's activities.60

 

57Magnusson, "The Development of Programs," p. 56.

58National Association for Girls and Women in Sport,
AIAW Directory 1976-77 (Washington,ILCJ American
Association for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation,
1976): p. 11.

 

5gswanson, "From Glide to Stride," pp. 51-52.

60Gerber et al., The American Woman in Sport, p. 165.

 

40

The climate for competition by college women was
becoming more favorable. After studying its philosophy and
the total picture of sports for women, the DGWS recognized
that it had been discriminating against the highly-skilled
woman athlete. The 1963 DGWS ”Statement of Policies.n'
encouraged colleges and universities to provide
opportunities for highly-skilled women athletes beyond the
level of the extramural program. This represented a
significant change in DGWS philosophy. Gerber stated:
"After decades of believing that attention to high-level
competitors would take something away from the majority of
women, the women leaders came to understand that high-level
sport brings something to the lesser-skilled women."61

These changes in attitudes toward competitive sport
were fueled by the political climate of the 19605. Women
were becoming a much more significant political force.
Yielding to great pressure to do so, PWesident
John F. Kennedy established an Interdepartmental Committee
on the Status of Women in 1963 charged with the
investigation of the progress of the government in the
advancement of the status of women. The committee included
cabinet members and heads of major departments. Working at
the same time was the Citizen's Advisory Council on the
Status of Women whose members came from business,
professional, and volunteer groups. This group was

promoting the advancement.of women in the private sector.

 

61Ibid., p. 76.

41

Women's rights proponent Catherime East was named the
executive director of both groups. All fifty states set up
their own commissions to study women's status by 1967.62

The 1963 publication of The Feminine Mystique by Betty

 

Friedan significantly changed the social and political scene
for women. Friedan charged that women had been victims of a
set of ideals she called the "feminine mystique" which saw
feminine fulfillment being achieved only through the roles
of wife and mother. The social and cultural conditioning
existing in American society denied women the opportunity to
develop a sense of themselves as people.63

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned sex
and race discrimination in employment. The original bill
did not include the sex discrimination provision but, in an
effort to delay the passage of the race discrimination act,
it was added by Congressman Howard Smith of Virginia. It
quickly became evident that the government had no intention
of enforcing the sex discrimination provisions. Betty
Friedan led in the organization of a gathering of prominant
women's groups in Washington, D.C. in 1965. That gathering
resulted in the founding of the National Organization for
Women (NOW). Friedan became the first president of the

organization.

 

62Lucy Komisar, The New Feminism (New York: Franklin
Watts, 1971), p. 112.

 

63Betty Friedan, The Feminine Mystique (New York:
W. W. Norton & Company, 1974), P. 32.

 

42

The primary purpose of NOW was "to take action to
bring women into full participation in the mainstream of
society now, exercising all (due privileges and
responsibilities thereof,iJ1truly'equal partnership‘with

men."64

The National Organization of Women established
chapters across the country to achieve its purpose. By
1970, nearly one hundred chapters were established. The
organization provided women with a powerful forum from which
to launch their efforts to end sex discrimination and
educate the public as to the problems and needs of women.65
The rapid changes in the political and social arenas
encouraged activity in the area of athletic opportunity for
women. The substantial growth of women's intercollegiate
athletics in the late 19605 was triggered in large measure
by the Study Conference on Competition held in 1965 in
Washington, DAL. One result: of this conference,
”Guidelines for Intercollegiate Athletic Programs for
Women", facilitated the development of sound athletic
programs in individual institutions.66
In 1965, the NJCESCW was disbanded by the ARFCW and

the NAPECW in recognition of the need for expanding national

championships and the desire to have the governance of

 

64Ibid., p. 384.

65Komisar, The New Feminism, p. 114.

 

66American Association for Health, Physical Education,
and Recreation,AIAW Handbook of Policies and Interim
Operating Procedures 1971-72 (Washington, D.C.: .Americarl
Association for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation,
1971), p.5.

 

43

womenfs intercollegiate athletics under the auspices of one
organization. Its function was remanded to the DGWS. Since
no existing area of the DGWS was appropriate to assume the
role of sanctioning intercollegiate athletic events for
women, the DGWS appointed the Committee on Intercollegiate
Sports for Women (CISW) in 1966. The CISW was to function
within the DGWS structure and was to assist.in the conduct
of intercollegiate sports for women. In 1967, the CISW was
renamed the Commission for Intercollegiate Athletics for
WOmen.(CIAW)tx>give weight to its high-level purpose.67
Katherine Ley was named CIAW chairman and the organization
took over (flue task of sponsoring DGWS national
championships.

The initial purposes of the Commission were:

1. To encourage the organization of colleges and
universities or organizations of women
physical educators to govern intercollegiate
competition for women at the local, state or

regional levels.

2. To hold DGWS national championships as the
need for them became apparent.

3. To sanction closed intercollegiate events at
which at least five:§olleges or universities
were participating.6

Magnusson stated: "A major concern was the establishment of

policy-making bodies at the local or regional levels which

 

67Gerber et al., The American Woman in Sport, pp. 83-

 

84.

68American Association for Health, Physical Education,
and Recreation,AIAW Handbook of Policies and Interim
Operating Procedures 1971-72, p. 5.

 

44

would adopt the DGWS Guidelines and enforce them as policy
and, in addition, add other necessary policies."69

An important question which the Commission had to
answer was whether growth in a given sport should be from
the top, meaning the establishment of a national
championship as a motivating factor, or whether growth
should come from the bottom, meaning local level
participation would create the need for a national
championship. The CIAW and the DGWS decided to promote
growth from both the top and the bottom. A schedule of
national championships to be Sponsored was developed. It
included the continuation of golf, the addition of
gymnastics and track and field in 1969, badminton, swimming
and diving, and volleyball in 1970, and basketball in

1972.70

1968-1972

 

The late 19605 and the early 19705 saw women make
great strides in many different arenas. The number of
women's rights groups increased significantly. In 1968, the
Women's Equity Action League (WEAL) and Human Rights for
Women (HRW) broke from NOW, under whose auspices they had

previously operated, and became separate organizations.

 

69Magnusson, "The Development of Programs," p. 56.

70Ibid., p. 57.

45

Also, in 1968, the Organization of Federally Employed Women
(FEW) was begun.71

The sporting arena was also the siteeof many changes
for women during this period. A female athlete, Janice Lee
York Romary, became the first woman chosen to carry the flag
of the United States in the opening ceremonies of the 1968
Olympic Games.72 In 1970, Bernice Gera ended a ten-year
struggle to become an umpire in professional baseball.
After having been accepted at an umpires' school, Ms. Gera
was denied access to the program when it was discovered that
she was a female. After a series of lawsuits, a State Court
of Appeals upheld a 1970 Human Rights Commission ruling and
ruled Gera eligible to umpire in the New York-Pennsylvania
League. She umpired one game in that league but, due to the
extreme harassment she received during her ten-year fight
and during that one game, she discontinued her fight.
Gera's battle stood as proof that women's opportunities in
sport could be expanded through the courts. Other court
action during this period resulted in access to the
professions of horse and motorcycle racing for Tuesdee Testa
and Kerry Kleid as well as a seat in the press box for

Elinor Kaine.73

 

71Alice S. Rossi and Ann Calderwood, Academic Women on
the Move (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1973), pp. 25-26.

 

 

72Gerber et al., The American Woman in Sport, p. 146.

73Ibid., pp. 215-218.

46

Collegiate Sport for women also grew from 1968-1972.
Participation by women in intercollegiate athletics
increased significantly. By 1972, many colleges and
universities were sponsoring sports programs through Women's
Athletic Associations (WAAs) and nearly 32,000 women were
participating.74

The CIAW guided DGWS national championships, gave
assistance to regional and local governing groups, and
implemented the CIAW established policies. Nine regional
representatives and one junior college representative worked
in an advisory capacity to lay the foundation for the
development of a constitution and to conduct an election of
officers.75

In 1971, the ARFCW and the ACACW merged and became
College Women In Sport (CW8). CW8 was a body of
representatives of WAAs which held national, regional, and
local meetings. The purpose of the bienniel national
conventions was to bring college women together to exchange
ideas, encourage leadership, and further national interest
in sport for college women.76

The growth of collegiate sport programs for women

developed the need for a more structured governing body to

 

74Dave Daniel, ed., Wholleges Seek Input to Title IX,”
NCAA News, March 15, 1974, p. 1.

 

75American Association for Health, Physical Education,
and Recreation,AIAW Handbook of Policies and Interim
Operating Procedures 1971-72, p. 6.

 

76Gerber et al., The American Woman in Sport, p. 79.

 

47

provide leadership and maintain standards of excellence in
intercollegiate competition for all college women. To meet
this need, the CIAW became the Association for
Intercollegiate Athletics for Wbmen (AIAW). The formation
of the AIAW had been approved by the DGWS Council and the
AAHPER Board of Directors in 1971 but the CIAW continued to
operate until July 1, 1972. During the 1971-72 academic
year, membership in the new organization had been solicited
and approximately 275 institutions joined.77

The AIAW purposes and philosophy remained much the

same as those of the CIAW. The purposes of the.AIAW were:

1. to foster broad programs of women's
intercollegiate athletics which are
consistent with the educational objectives of
member schools;

2. to assist member schools to extend and enrich
their programs cu? intercollegiate athletics
for women;

3. to stimulate the development of quality
leadership among persons responsible for
women's intercollegiate athletic programs;

4. to encourage excellence in performance of
participaflis in women's intercollegiate
athletics.

The two major differences in the organizations were

the method of obtaining leadership and the develOpment of

major policy. The leadership of the CIAW was appointed by

 

77Lucille Magnusson, 'The What and Why of AIAW,”
Journal of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation, March
1972, p. 71.

78American Association for Health, Physical Education,
andRecreation, AIAW Handbook of Policies and Interim
Sperating Procedures 1971-72, p. 6.

 

 

48

the DGWS. The leadership of the AIAW was to be elected by
the membership. In the area of policy development, each
member institution was to have a vote in major policy issues
under the AIAW. That was unlike the CIAW method where
policies were handed down by the DGWS.79 With its
formation, the AIAW became the first governing body for
womenfs intercollegiate sports with the power to enforce its

own policies.80

1972-1974

 

The period from 1972 to 1974 was perhaps the most
political period in the evolution of women's sports. On
March 22, 1972 the Equal Rights Amendment was passed by the
United States Senate. This legislation provided the
foundation for the improvement of the legal and economic
status of women.81

The women's liberation movement, while it had created
some interest in the plight of women in sport, actually paid
little attention to athletic equality. Robin Morgan, an
early and agressive leader of the women's rights movement,

stated that the slow entrance into concern for sport was due

to a common lack of understanding of the field.82

 

79Magnusson, ”The DevelOpment of Programs," pp. 57-58.

80Gerber et al., The American Woman in Sport, p. 84.

 

811bid., p. 212.

82Bil Gilbert and Mary Williamson, "Programmed to be
Losers," Sports Illustrated, June 11, 1973, p. 65.

 

49

Attention was, however, focused on equality in
athletics with the passage of Title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972.

No person in the United States shal l, on the basis
of sex, be excluded from participation in, be
denied the benefits of, or be subjected to
discrimination under any education program 85
activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
The Act made no mention of athletics or athletic programs
but instead referred to sex discriminationtin educational
programs and activities. Hogan stated, however:
Fueled by an almost chemical interaction of a
federal anti-sex discrimination law, the women's
liberation movement, and what is called the temper

of the times, women's sports took off like a
rocket in 1972.

Following the passage of the Act, women's groups were
quick to press for action in the area of athletics. Both
NOW and WEAL issued strong statements concerning necessary
improvement of opportunities for women in sports. The WEAL
statement read:

In terms of athletic programs". the thrust of the
efforts to bring about equal opportunity for women
must be twofold: While outstanding female
athletes should not be excluded from competition

because their schools provide teams only for
males, separate but equal programs should be

 

8320 United States Code, Education Amendments of 1972
(Washington, DAL: United States Printing Office, 1972),
section 1681(a).

84Candace Lyle Hogan, "From Here to Equality: Title
IX," womenSports, September 1977, p. 16.

 

50

provided for average female students, who canngg
compete equally in athletics with male students.

The National Organization for Women passed a
resolution concerning equality for college women in sport at
its sixth annual convention in February 1973. It stated:

Whereas: ‘Women represent more than half of the
population of American college students.

Whereas: Women pay the same tuition fees and
athletic fees as men.

Whereas: Women have traditionally been required
to meet higher standards for admission
to many colleges.

Whereas: Women students and academic personnel
receive less grant, scholarships,
fellowships, and other forms of
financial aid.

Whereas: Women have the same right and desire to
maintain their physical health,
experience the joy of movement, and the
challenge of competition.

Whereas: ‘There now exist Federal and State laws
which prohibit discrimination on the
basis of sex.

Resolved: That women in collegiate sport demand
equality and freedom from
discrimination, as granted them by the
attached Federal Laws and Regulations
Concerning Sex Discrimination in
Educational Institutions.

Resolved: That women in collegiate sport, both
students and staff, insist upon
correcting inequities in time following
areas.

Those areas included admissions and appointments, financial
aid and scholarships, personnel, organization and

administration, finances, facilities and services, and

 

85Margaret C. Dunkle, “Equal Opportunity for Women in
Sports," in Women's Athletics: Coping With Controversy, ed.
Barbara J. Hoepner (Washington, ILC.: American Association
of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation, 1974), p. 17.

51

sports programming. It task force t1) implement sports
policies was also created.86

In its May 1973 report, The Citizens'.Advisory Council
on the Status of Women identified physical education,
sports, and extracurricular activities as areas in which sex
discrimination was most likely to exist. The American
notion of sports being good for people, building better
citizens, vigorous minds and bodies, promoting a better
society, was actually being applied to only one-half of the
population. Gilbert and Williamson stated:

Sports may be good for people, but they are
considered a £fitlgooder for male people than for
female people.

During this period, the AIAW continued to develOp as
an organization mirroring the growth of intercollegiate
sports programs for women. The AIAW leadership, following
that of the DGWS, worked diligently to avoid what it saw as
abuses in the system of men's intercollegiate athletics.
The most significant of these issues was the avoidance of

athletic scholarship programs for female athletes. The

1972-73 AIAW Handbook included the DGWS Scholarship

 

Statement which described that position as intended to
protect, rather than diminish, the continued development of

athletics for women. It was intended to discourage the

 

86National Organization for Women, ”Towards Equality
in Sport--Recommendations," resolution passed at the NOW
National Conference, Washington, D.C., February 1973.

87B11 Gilbert and Mary Williamson, "Sport is Unfair to
Women," Sports Illustrated, May 21, 1973, p. 90.

 

52

buying or retaining of athletic talent by any college or
university.88

The policy prohibiting the awarding of athletic
scholarships to female athletes was rescinded by both the

DGWS and the AIAW on April 2, 1973 following legal

challenges. The 1973-74 AIAW Handbook carried the following

 

policy revision:

The DGWS is concerned that many collegiate
athletic programs, as currently administered, do
not make available to female students benefits
equivalent in nature or extent to those made
available to male students. While a curtailment
of programs of financial aid to female students
. involved in athletics does eliminate the potential
for abuses inherent in such programs, this remedy
is overly broad--because it operates inequitably
to deny female students benefits available to
their male counterparts. Specifically, these
benefits might include the recognition of athletic
excellence and the opportunity for economic
assistance to secure an education. Therefore,
DGWS believes that the appropriate solution in our
contemporary society is one directed to avoiding
abuses while providing to female students, on an
equitable basis, benefits comparable to tagse
available to male students similarly situated.

This statement marked a significant philosophical change for
the AIAW. Athletic scholarships were permitted but the
development of such programs was not encouraged.

Athletic leaders began to realize the impact of the
passage of Title IX. Dr. Katherine Ley, president of the

AAHPER, stated:

 

88Division for Girls and Women's Sports,Philosophy
and Standards for Girls and Women's Sports, p. 27.

 

 

89Mildred Barnes, ed., AIAW Handbook of Policies and
Qperating Procedures 1973-1974 (Washington, ELC.: American
Association for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation,
1973), P. 24.

 

53

There is little doubt that Title IX represents a
major breakthrough for women in education:
certainly it has particular benefits for women in
sports. In my opinion it is the greatest step
forward for fsfiales since they were granted the
right to vote.

However, the total impact of the passage of Title IX
was just beginning to be felt. In the fall of 1973, the
first draft of The Guidelines for Title IX of the Higher
Education Amendments Act of 1972 were published. Included
was the following broadened application of the law to
athletics:

Except as provided in this section, no person
shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from
participation in, be denied the benefits of, be
treated differently from another person, or
otherwise be discriminated against in any athletic
program or activity operated by a recipient (one
who receives federal aid) and no recipient shall
provide anygiuch program or activity separately on
such basis.

That draft set the stage for a long series of
interpretations as to precisely what was covered by the law
and the actions required of schools to comply with the
regulations. Some interpretations required co-ed pmograms
of athletics to be developed. Others interpreted the
regulations to require separate but equal programs.

Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW)

Caspar W. Weinberger blamed Congress for enacting a broad

 

90Katherine Ley, ”Women in Sports: Where Do We Go
from Here, Boys?', Phi Delta Kappan, October 1974, p. 129.

9138 Federal Register (Washington, DAL: Office of
the Federal Register, September 20, 1973), pp. 26384-26389.

54

anti-sex bias law ”with little legislative history, debate,
or thought about the difficult problems of application."92
Any interpretation, however, elicited strong reaction
from administrators responsible for the conduct of men's
intercollegiate athletics. During this period, the major
governing body for men's intercollegiate athletics, the
National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), worked hard
to gain the exemption of athletics from Title IX. Since
athletics had always been regarded as educational, the NCAA

request was denied.93

1974-1976

 

Reactions to the proposed application of Title IX to
intercollegiate athletics by administrators of men's
athletic programs continued to be frequent and severe. Don
Canham, athletic director at the University of Michigan,
expressed his concern about the implementation of the law in
a letter to HEW Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger. Canham
stated that his pmimary concerns were in the areas of
provision of equal equipment, facilities, scholarships, and
budgets for women's sports. He indicated that, in his
opinion, the present interest in women's programs did not
warrant such regulations. In calling for the change of the

regulations, Canham stated:

 

92Cheryl M. Fields, "HEW Softens Bias Stand,”
The Chronicle of Higher Education, April 7, 1975, p. 1.

 

93Ley, "Women in Sports," p. 130.

55

This proposal, Title IX, would be an absolute

disaster for both gunfls and women's

intercollegiate athletics. 4

The NCAA also continued its effort to change the Title
IX regulations. In the March 1, 1974 issue of the

NCAA News, Robert C. James, chairman of the NCAA Joint

 

Legislative Committee, stated that if athletics must be
covered, then a reasonable and practical method should be
developed to prevent severe damages to the revenue-producing
sports and to prevent an increase in the 49.5 million dollar
annual deficit presently incurred by NCAA member
institutions in the conduct of their intercollegiate
athletic programs.95

The NCAA published a request that Title IX regulations

be withdrawn in the March 5, 1974 issue of the NCAA News.

 

The NCAA charged that none of the bodies which administered
intercollegiate athletics were contacted during the drafting
of the Title IX regulations. The regulations demanded more
from competitive athletics than from non-competitive
athletics. While physical education classes could be
offered without sex-related restriction, competitive
programs for women must be offered if women lacked the skill
to make an open team. The NCAA challenged the legal basis

for that great variance in requirements.96

 

94Don Canham, “Opposition Forwarded to Title IX
Regulations,“ NCAA News, May 15, 1974, p. 6.

 

95Dave Daniel, ed., "HEW Regulations Threaten College
Athletics," NCAA News, March 1, 1974, p. 2.

 

96Daniel, "Colleges Seek Input To Title IX," p. 1.

56

The debate over the applicability of Title IX to all
phases of intercollegiate athletics continued in Congress
also. The sponsor of the original bill in the Senate, Birch
Bayh, indicated that the purpose of the bill was to provide
equal access for men and women to the educational process
and the extracurricular activities in a school where there
was not a unique facet such as football involved. HEW,
however, drafted regulations which proposed blanket rules to
govern all athletic activities.97

Efforts were made in Congress to amend Title IX to
exclude athletics from its jurisdiction. Senator John Tower
prOposed an amendment in May 1974 which would have exempted
the revenue-producing sports. He stated that the purpose of
this amendment was to preserve the revenue base of
intercollegiate athletics so that it could provide for
expanding opportunities for women athletes. The Senate
passed the Tower amendment but, following debate in a
Senate-House conference committee, the bill became a
compromise sponsored by Senator Jacob Javits. The Javits
amendment specified that HEW prepare and publish reasonable

regulations for athletics which considered the nature of

particular sports. The particular sports in question were

 

97Fred C. Davison, ”Intercollegiate Athletics and
Title IX: Equal Opportunity or Federal Incursion?,"
USA Today. July 1979, p. 36.

 

57

football and men's basketball.98 The Javits amendment
failed to gain Congressional approval.

A second draft of Guidelines to Title IX was issued by
HEW on June 18, 1974. That draft was designed to be non-
disruptive to existing intercollegiate athletic programs.
Athletics would receive more leeway than most educational
programs and would be asked to come into compliance
voluntarily. Separate teams for males and females or
single-sex teams could be provided if members were selected
on the basis of skill. Equal expenditures would not be
required but equitable programs to meet the needs and
interests oflxnflxsexes would be required. Compliance at
the institutional level would be made on the basis of the
institution's total effort rather than on a sport-by-sport

basis.99

Representatives of the NCAA remained apprehensive
but heartened by HEW's apparent recognition of the special
characteristics of certain sports. Non-discriminatory
factors which could justify differences in treatment among
sports included: (1) the nature and level of competition:

(2) variations in equipment costs; (3) the cost of

publicity; and (4) tflue cost of travel.100

 

98More Hurdles to Clear: Women and Girls in
Competitive Athletics (Washington, D.C.: United States
Commission on Civil Rights, [July 1980]), p. 7.

99E. Wentworth, ”HEW Offers 'Nondisruptive' Bans in
Sex Bias,“ The Washington Post, June 19, 1984.

100Thomas J. Flygare, "HEW's New Guidelines on Sex
Discrimination in Collegiate Athletics/'Phi Delta Kappan,
March 1979, p. 530.

 

58

Between June 24, 1974 and August 2, 1974 twelve public
hearings were held. In the eighteen month period following

the June 1974 publication of the original Guidelines, over

 

ninety-seven hundred responses were received by HEW.101
Varied interpretations of the regulations continued to
abound. Some felt that co-ed locker room and toilet
facilities may be required by the Title IX guidelines.
While womenfs groups fought to keep athletics from being
entirely exempted from Title IX, others felt that change was

necessary because the Guidelines were inconsistent with the

 

original law; 102

On May 27, 1975, HEW issued the final implementing
regulations which President Gerald Ford signed and forwarded
for congressional review. No changes were approved in the
Congress so Title IX of the Education Amendments went into
effect on July 21, 1975. The regulations took effect in
July 1976 for elementary schools and in July 1978 for
secondary schools and colleges.103

In September 1975, a memorandum was sent to school and
college administrators by the'United States Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare/Office for Civil Rights
containing the final regulations barring sex discrimination

in athletics. Educational institutions were required to

 

101Corbin Gwaltney, “Anti-Sex Bias Rules,"
The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 10, 1975, p. 10.

102Corbin Gwaltney, "Mood in Congress Alarms Women,"
The Chronicle of Higher Education, April 28, 1975, p. 7.

103

 

More Hurdles to Clear, p. 7.

 

59

conduct a self-evaluation of current policies and practices
in athletics by July 21, 1976. Following the self-
evaluation, institutions were required to develop plans to
correct existing inequities. Inequities were to be
corrected by July 21, 1978. The two year period was to be
considered as an adjustment period rather than as a waiting
period. Few schools responded to the requirement to conduct
the self-analysis.104 Cox stated: ”In view of the stiff
opposition to the regulation among some members of Congress
and the lobbying efforts of the NCAA, the final regulations
may be more effective than should have been expected."'105
lxlspiterof much foot dragging in complying with the
requirements of Title IX, women's intercollegiate athletic
programs continued to grow in number and in size. The AIAW
had grown to include almost six hundred members. The
organization had replaced its practice of mail balloting on
key issues with an annual Delegate Assembly. Each member
institution had a: presidentially-appointed.‘Voting
Representative. The national championship slate included
ten championships in seven sports. In addition two other
championships, the United States Tennis Association
Championship and the Women's College World Series, were
recognized by the AIAW. Philosophical ly, the AIAW continued

to take the strong stand develOped by its parent

 

104Hogan, “From Here to Equality," p. 17.

14%5Thomas A.(kng "Intercollegiate Athletics and Title
IX,” George Washington Law Review, November 1977, p. 64.

 

60

organizations on the positive relationship of education and

competitive athletic experiences.106

1976-1978

 

Individual colleges and universities struggled with
the implementation of the Title IX regulations on their own

campuses. Roger Williams, in Saturday Review, stated that

 

while some institutions had accepted the requirements and
beefed up their women's programs, others had ignored the
requirements hoping the law or its supporters would go away.
Further, he said, that while overall progress was slow,
institutions were not totally to blame. The language of
Title IX was vague. Institutions which wanted to provide
adequate funding for women's athletics were hard pressed to
find the resources. Reductions in other areas of the
institution or the receipt of new money from state
legislatures were the only viable methods of providing
continuous funding for such program adjustments. Some
colleges did go to special fundraising efforts to improve
with many institutions making improvements in the areas of
athletic opportunities for women. Halting progress was made

numbers of sports and operating budgets but resisting change

 

106Judith R. Holland, ed., AIAW Handbook of Policies
and Operating Procedures 1974-75 (Washington, ELC.:
American Association for Health, Physical Education, and
Recreation, 1974), pp. 33-34.

 

 

61

in the improvements of coachesfl.salaries, travel arrange-
ments, or the use of facilities.107

The increase in the number of participants in womenfis
intercollegiate athletics became significant. A 1977 survey
conducted by the NCAA of its member institutions found that
170,384 men and 64,375 women had participated during 1976-
77. That number of women represented 27.4 percent of the
total athletic population and a 102.1 percent increase since
1971-72. It was suggested that those gains appeared tolxa
so significant due to the very low starting point.108

According to LaNoue, the Title IX issues were further
exacerbated by the hidden agendas of special interest
groups. Feminists appeared to be striking back against the
male culture as represented by certain athletic traditions.
Other groups appeared to be using Title IX as a tool to cut
back on expenditures and abuses in big-time intercollegiate
Sport. Major universities with football and men's
basketball programs seemed to be trying to protect the
competitive edge their affluence had previously bought.109

The many positive changes which occurred in women's

intercollegiate athletics as a result of the passage of

 

107Roger‘Williams, "The Battle for Bucks in Women's
Athletics,” Saturday Review, January 21, 1978, p. 56.

 

108More Hurdles to Clear, p. 21.

 

109George R. LaNoue, ”Athletics and Equality: How to
Comply with Title IX Without Tearing Down the Stadium,”
Change, November 1976, p. 27.

62

Title IX were accompanied by some negative changes.
Katherine Ley wrote:
Many colleges and universities have merged men%;
and women's physical education departments in
anticipation of Title IX. Where there have been
two chairmen in the past there is now one. The
influence of women in decision-making positions is
being reduced. The greatest loss may very well be
in the realnlof philosophy, because the attitude
of many womep toward competition does differ from
that of men. 10
Women themselves disagreed on the direction in which
athletic programs for women should head. One philosophy
promoted the spending of larger amounts of money and effort
on the intramural and recreational programs which offered
participation opportunities for many. The opposing school
of thought advocated the full‘development.of programs for
talented students. Women also disagreed regarding the speed
with which to modify existing programs. Women who chose to
move more slowly, spending time in planning and adjusting,
were judged to have cold feet. The acronym DGWS was
sometimes said to stand for Don't Give Women Sports.111
Much of the male athletic world spent time grumbling
about the "they're going to rob Peter to pay Paula” theory.
It was commonly felt that the financial resources necessary
to expand women's sports programs would come from existing
resources which supported men's programs. By and large,

that proved to be a fallacy. Most institutions reported

making no significant changes in their nmufls programs while

 

110Ley, "Women in Sports,“ p. 131.

111Gerber et al., The American Woman in Sport, p. 233.

 

63

112 This was due to

they expanded opportunities for women.
the fact that womenfs sports were treated in much the same
way as men's minor sports, low on the totem pole, when
compared with the revenue—producing sports.

The Title IX enforcement regulations were guided by
the 1964 Civil Rights Act (Title VI). The developed
doctrine of equal protection as applied to women was used.
Institutions found to be in non-compliance with the Title IX
regulations risked the cut-off of federal funds.113

The NCAA challenge of the Title IX regulations
continued. In 1976, the NCAA initiated a lawsuit which
charged that athletic programs do not receive federal
assistance and should, therefore, be exempt from the

114 Interestingly, the regulations failed to

regulations.
deal with athletic associationstx>which.schools belonged
such as the NCAA. These organizations had proven to be
major obstacles to equalization efforts due to their
political efforts and the fact that they publicized and
supported men's athletics to the exclusion of women's

sports.115

 

112Hogan, ”From Here to Equality," pp. 26-27.

113"Sex Discrimination and Intercollegiate Athletics,"
Yale Law Review, May 1979, p. 1256.

 

114Patricia Huckle, "Back to the Starting Line,“
American Behavioral Scientist, January/February 1978
p. 384.

115"Sex Discrimination and Intercollegiate Athletics,"
p. 1276.

64

From 1976 to 1978, the AIAW underwent significant
organizational changes. It began to recognize the
differences inherent in collegiate institutions and divided
its membership into three categories for competitive
purposes. Those categories included: (1) large colleges
(more than three thousand full-time undergraduate female
students), (2) small colleges (less than three thousand
full-time undergraduate female studentsL, and (3)
junior/community colleges. By 1978, national championships
were held in twelve sports, a national letter of intent was
being used, and the organization had 750 members.116 The
number of institutions giving athletic scholarships to
females had sky-rocketed. By 1978, ten thousand women from
460 schools received scholarships worth over seven million

dollars.117

1978-1981

 

The ability of the AIAW to develop fully in all of the
directions it had identified as important began to be
hampered In! its close association with its parent
organizations. The AAHPERD (AAHPER had changed its name to
give greater recognition to its dance sub-group in the early

19705) and the NAGWS (DGWS had become the National

 

116National Association for Girls and Women in Sport,
AIAW Handbook 1977-78 (Washington, DAL: American
Associatibn for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation,
1977), p. 2.

 

117"Comes the Revolution," Time, June 26: 1978: Po 54-

65

Association for Girls and Women in Sport in 1974) controlled
the legal affairs of the AIAW and held the seats on the
amateur sport governing body boards which the AIAW
leadership felt should belong to its organization. In
recognition of the need for change, the AIAW formed a
committee to study the impact of leaving the AAHPERD
umbrella and becoming a separate legal entity. Following
study, the AIAW became legally separate from the AAHPERD on
June 1, 1979 but continued programmatic and philosophical
ties with both the AAHPERD and the NAGWS.118 Regarding this
action, Ulrich stated:
The metamorphosis of the AIAW from a group of
women interested in the development of women's
sport to a group of women interested in the
development of women thfgugh athletics was a
subtle but important one.

As it continued to grow, the AIAW added to its
national championship offerings until by 1980 it sponsored
thirty-nine championships in seventeen sports. Nine hundred
sixty-seven institutions held membership in 1980.
Competitive divisions had been reorganized and divided into
categories based on the amount of athletic financial aid

given by a member school. Student representation was added

to the governance structure at all levels and became a major

 

118Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for
Women, AIAW Handbook 1979-80 (Washington, [LC.: Association
for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women, 1979), p. 1.

 

119Celeste Ulrich, ”The End of an Era,“ Coaching:
Women's Athletics, September/October 1980, p. 15.

 

 

66

difference between the AIAW and other major sport governing
organizations.120

The AIAW realized the need to generate resources for
the organization from sources other than membership dues.
In 1978, it appointed a special committee to study the
possibility of selling its championships to television.121
At the January 1980 AIAW Delegate Assembly, the Television
Committee announced the beginning of a three year, one
million dollar contract with the National Broadcasting
Corporationtx>televise several championships. That fact
fueled discussion regarding the possibility of corruption in
women's athletics, long regarded as a serious problem in the
rmnfls structure. Illegal competition for the dollar might
increase if there were more dollars to be had. The AIAW had
no enforcement arm to guarantee compliance with its
regulations. Emphasis was, instead, placed on the credo
that self-policing was the most appropriate method in which
to deal with potential violatitnuh The AIAW position was
one of believing that conscience was more powerful than

compulsion.122

 

120Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for
Women, AIAW Handbook 1979-80, p. 1.

 

121National Association for Girls and Women in Sport,
AIAW Handbook 1978-79 (Washington, DAL: American
Assoéiation for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation,
1978): P. 1.

 

122"Comes the Revolution," p. 59.

67

With the Title IX issues still smoldering on most
campuses, another major battle developed. That was: who
was to govern womenfs intercollegiate athletics. That issue
had early origins. The NCAA had indicated interest in
women's athletic programs as early as the mid-19605.123
However, in 1964 The National Association of Physical
Education for College Women (NAPECW) encouraged the NCAA to
take a clear stand on a position to conduct activities for
men only. The NCAA did so to the great satisfaction of the
women physical educators but by mid-1971 some women began
taking action against the NCAA for the exclusion.124

In June 1971, Walter Byers, Executive Director of the
NCAA, expressed some interest in getting into the business
of women$ssports when the NCAA legal counsel found that the
organization might be legally liable for not providing
sports opportunities for women. NCAA and DGWS
representatives met to discuss the possibilities. Byers
suggested that if the AIAW disassociated itself from the
AAHPER, the NCAA might accept it as its affiliated women's

organization. Not anxious to lose control of womenfs sports

 

123Carole Oglesby, Women and Sport: From Myth to
Reality (Philadelphia, PA: Lea and Febyer, 1978), p. 13.

124Holbrook, “Women's Participation in American
Sport,“ p. 55.

68

programs, the DGWS decided against a move in that
direction.125

In January 1975, the NCAA Convention was to vote on a
proposal to begin the governance of women's sports. The
AIAW Delegate Assembly was being held concurrently and, when
word of the NCAA intention reached the AIAW representatives,
they reacted with shock. The AIAW delegates contacted their
institutional representatives at the NCAA convention to
demand that the proposal be voted down. The AIAW, not
expecting such a pmoposal and being relatively unschooled
politically, did not have even one woman with speaking
privileges on the floor of the NCAA Convention in
Washington, D.C.126

The last minute effort by the AIAW accomplished its
goal however. The NCAA had no choice but to refer the issue
to a committee for further study. The AIAW and the NCAA
formed a joint study committee to address the issue. The
committee reached no mutually agreeable conclusions
regarding the governance of womenis sports. When, in April
1975, the NCAA distributed the redeveloped governance
proposal to its membership, Roger Wiley, AAHPER president,

requested its exclusion from the 1976 NCAA Convention

agenda. The issue did reach the Convention floor but was

 

125Joanne Thorpe, ”The Relationship of DGWS to AIAW,"
in Women's Athletics: Coping With Controversy (Washington,
ILC.: American Association for Health, Physical Education,
and Recreation, 1974), p. 61.

126Celeste Ulrich, "Breakthrough or Breakdownfl'
Coaching: Women's Athletics, January/February 1980, p. 18.

 

69

referred back for further committee study with little
attention given. In 1977, it appeared as if the AIAW had
won its battle to continue governing womenfs intercollegiate
athletics.127

In the fall of 1979, the NCAA Council appointed the
Special Committee on NCAA Governance, Organization, and
Services. The task of the Committee was to study reports
produced by another NCAA committee in the area of the
organizational structures common in intercollegiate
athletics. Those reports indicated that a substantial and
growing percentage of men's and womenis athletic departments
had merged. The Special Committee reported that, in view of
the findings of those reports, action to bring men's and
womenksathletic programs under a single competitive
umbrella was appropriate.128

The issue of NCAA involvement in womends.athletics
resurfaced at the 1980 NCAA Convention when a proposal to
establish women's championships in five sports for
Invisunm II and III (middle and small-sized schools)
appeared on the agenda. The proposal included a 1981-82

starting date for the new championships. The AIAW

petitioned strongly for a delay in the action. The 1980

 

l27Candace Lyle Hogan, ”NCAA and AIAW: Wil l the Men
Score on Women's Athletics?,' womenSports, January 1977,
pp. 46-470

 

l28Randi Jean Greenberg, "AIAW vs NCAA: The Takeover
and ImplicationsflUcurnal of the National Association for
Women Deans, Administrators, and Counselors, Winter 1974,
p. 30.

 

70

AIAW Delegate Assembly passed a resolution which called for
a five—year moratorium on efforts to establish women's
championships.

The NCAA proposal appeared to be the most significant
threat to that date to the AIAW. Many women administrators
in athletics were being pressured to apply the same rules to
women's programs as were being applied to their
institutions' men}s programs. That pressure and the support
for NCAA-sponsored womenfls championships increased when the
NCAA proposed to pay expenses for teams which participated
in its women's championships. The AIAW had not come close
to the development of a financial base necessary to pay
championship expenses. The NCAA proposal significantly
increased the pressure on women administrators to defend the
growing institutional financial commitment inherent in AIAW
membership.129

Many institutions realized that they were in the
untenable position of simultaneously supporting
contradictary policies in athletics due to their membership
obligations in the two organizations. Reconciliation of
those differences was a major challenge which required

prompt action.130

 

129Cheryl M. Fields and Lorenzo Middleton, I'Women's
Sports Group Stunned, Angered by NCAA Vote on Female
Championships/'The Chronicle of Higher Education, January
14, 1980, p. 1. ‘

130GeorgeHanford,"IntercollegiateAthletics Today
and Tomorrow: The Presidents' Challenge,”
Educational Record, 1977, p. 34.

 

71

Women were also divided on the issue» Some regarded
the proposed NCAA action as a takeover and thought it
represented a total loss of control by women for women. Not
all women, however, disapproved of the NCAA effort. Some
felt it was wiser to have the political power and status of
the NCAA in support of women's programs.131 Ulrich stated
that the division of thought.among'women.invathletics was
evidence of the dissension which existed in the ranks of the
AIAW. The social lures of status and money suggested a
format that tended to emulate men's programs. Some AIAW
members expressed anger at the slowness of the organization
to extend opportunities for women in athletics. Some
believed that an alliance among sport governing bodies was
needed and that the AIAW should initiate that action.
Others saw the AIAW as an interim organization which would
permit the formation of a new organization for men's and
‘women's athletics.132

The NCAA viewed the proposal to sponsor women's
championships not as a takeover of women's athletics but as
an additional opportunity for institutions which wished to
sponsor women's programs. The proposal was seen as a
response to the membership's expressed interest in such
activity. No institution was to be required to affiliate

its women's program with the NCAA even if its men's teams

 

131Huckle, "Back to the Starting Line," p. 388.

132Celeste Ulrich, "Valor :hn the Vanguard,"
Coaching: Women's Athletics, January/February 1981, p. 24.

 

72

participated in NCAA-sponsored competition. Burgess
believed, however, that some NCAA delegates who were in
favor of providing women's championships thought that
women's athletics were expanding too rapidly and were
concerned with balancing budgets. The control of women's
athletics seemed to hold promise for affecting that
balance.133

At the January, 1980 NCAA Convention, the proposal to
sponsor women's championships in five sports for
Divisions II and III passed and was set for implementation
in August 1981.

The result of the study of the NCAA Special Committee
on Governance, Organization, and Services was a plan which
provided a comprehensive slate of women's championships for
all divisions and.a governance plan for womenfs programs.
The governance plan included a period from 1981 to 1985
during which the applicability of NCAA regulations to
women's programs would be studied. The plan also included
guaranteed representation for women on NCAA committees at
all levels. Allocations were to exist for almost every NCAA
committee on a formula of one third of the positions
allocated for women, one third for men, and one third

unallocated. That formula was derived from the national

 

133William J. Burgess, "A Common Strategy," Coaching:
Women's Athletics, March/April 1981, p. 5.

 

 

73

average participation ratio in intercollegiate athletics of
approximately two men to one woman.134

Dr. James Frank, then chairman of the Special
Committee and later president of the NCAA, said:

In the final analysis, the plan does not attempt
to decide what is right for women's athletics.
The governance plan does represent a commitment to
involve women professionals in an integrated
structure for the administration of
intercollegiate athletics. It is not a takeover.
It is a direct response to the expressed interest
of many NCAA member institutions to make available
to their female athletes those benefits available
to their male athletes as a result of NCAA
membership, and to afford their professional staff
in women's athletics the opportunity to be
involved in the management ofLfiPtercollegiate
athletics at the national level.

The proposed plan continued to reflect the strong NCAA
commitment to the one institution/one vote principle. Women
were, however, to be included in the voting structure at the
institutional level. A fourth voting delegate was to be
added to the institutional convention delegation. Prior to
the proposed plan, only three voting delegates had been
permitted. They were the chief executive officer, the
faculty representative, and the director of athletics. The
fourth delegate was to be added and the plan encouraged
member institutions to appoint the women's athletic director
or the assistant athletic director who was a woman to fill

that spot. Ruth Berkey, who later became the NCAA Director

of WomenFs Championships, stated:

 

134James Frank, "NCAA Governance," Coaching: Womenfi;
Athletics, March/April 1981, p. 34.

 

 

1351bid.

74

The NCAA addition of a fourth member to an
institution's annual convention delegation, a
female who understands and is associated with
collegiate athletics, is an excellliteént way of
insuring female strength in the NCAA.

During the prOposed phase-in period from 1981 to 1985,
institutions would opt to apply NCAA regulations or the
regulations of any other national organization to its
womenis programs. According to the NCAA plan, institutions
would be permitted to participate in NCAA championships in
addition to the championships of any other governing
organization if such option was permitted by the other
organization. The assumption made by the NCAA was that the
AIAW would continue to coexist and sponsor championships.
To explain the plan to women administrators and to gather
support for its passage at the 1981 NCAA Convention, the
NCAA held regional meetings during the summer of 1980 in
Denver and Pittsburgh.137

There were many proponents of the plan as proposed by
the NCAA. They cited five major reasons for supporting the

plan over existing AIAW programs. They were:

1. The AIAW did not have enough money to serve
its members and never would have enough.

2. There was financial as well as moral advantage
to having both men and women students under
one set of rules.

3. It was felt that the NCAA clout would get
greater exposure for women's athletics,
particularly in the area of television
coverage.

 

136Ulrich, “Valor in the Vanguard," p. 26.

137Greenberg, "AIAW vs NCAA," p. 32.

75

4. The AIAW organizational hierarchy was seen to
be less than responsive to the needs of the
membership.

5. The needs of minority womefieamong the AIAW
membership had not been met.

To meet the challenge from the NCAA, the AIAW
resistance was directed at exposing the NCAA move as an
attempt at takeover. AIAW leaders appealed to NCAA members
to consider the legal, financial, and philosophical
implications of including womenfis athletics under the NCAA
structure. The AIAW leaders felt strongly that the true
costs of expanding to serve women's programs were never
described to the NCAA member institutions. Member schools
were not, according to the AIAW, told of the higher
institutional costs which would be required to maintain
Title IX compliance. The focus of these costs was in the
change of regulations in the area of recruitment of
prospective student-athletes.139

Supporters of the AIAW criticized the NCAA governance
plan vocally. Gary Engstrand said:

The plain fact is that the governance proposal is
of, by, and for men. .Even though there is token
representation of women on committees, men drafted

it and meta will vote on it at the NCAA
Convention.1 0

 

138Elizabeth Wheeler, "War of the Words,“ Women's
Sports, June 1981, pp. 16-17.

139Cheryl M. Fields, ”Sports Organizations Set to
Debate Question of Women's Championships,” The Chronicle of
Higher Education, December 8, 1980, p. 1.

 

 

140Gary Engstrand,'fixnflt Expect Fair Play from the
NCAA for Women,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, December
15, 1980, p. 19.

 

76

Representative Patricia Schroeder observed that while menks
organizations historically viewed womenis athletes as ”sheep
to be slaughtered,“ since the advent of Title IX, they had
viewed women's athletics as ”sheep to be herded."141

Opponents of the NCAA plan believed that the plan was
insincere, a smoke screen effort to thwart equal opportunity
and preserve the traditional male domination in sports.
They also stressed the affirmative nature of the AIAW,
saying that it.was an excellent training ground for women
administrators at all levels.142 ‘WillianlBurgess called the
NCAA action "market-dumping"--the reduction of the AIAW with
the simultaneous expansion of the NCAA.143

The AIAW response to the NCAA proposed governance plan
and championship structure included details of requirements
to keep institutional AIAW membership in good standing if
the plan passed. The AIAW issued a statement which said
schools would be required to follow all AIAW rules totally
in order to be eligible to participate in any of its
national championships.144

Following one of the most bitter debates in the

history of the organization, the 1981 NCAA Convention

 

141"Texts of Statements by Three Sports Organizations
on Championships,'The Chronicle of Higher Education,
December 8, 1980, p. 8.

142Elizabeth Wheeler, "NCAA vs AIAW," Women's Sports.
June 1980, p. 22.

 

143Burgess, "A Common Strategy," p. 4.

144Wheeler, “War of the Words," p. 14.

77

adopted proposals to establish women's championships for
Division I, add new championships to the list of those
scheduled to begin in fall 1981 for Divisions II and III,
and to establish a four year plan to develop policies to
govern both men's and women's sports. James Frank, the NCAA

president, called the move a “sincere and honorable

.145

commitment to women's athletics. Candace Lyle Hogan

commented:

After years of defeat in head-to-head competition
with the AIAW over Title IX, the men found a way
to beat Title IX by destroying the competition and
making itself the 'representative' of women's
athletics instead. It seems as if the fox has
finally fggnd a way to be the guardian of the
chickens.

1981-1984

 

The adoption of proposals for governance of and
championships for women's athletic programs by the NCAA
forced the AIAW into immediate action to ascertain the
future directions of its membership. The AIAW asked its
member schools to declare whether they planned to
participate in AIAW events during the 1981-82 school year by
May 1, 1981. Following that declaration date, it was

determined that the AIAW had suffered a 20 percent

 

14SLorenzo Middleton and Cheryl Fields, “NCAA Votes to
Widen Role in Women's Sports; Action is Bitterly Debated,
'Power Play'Chargedfl'The Chronicle of Higher Education,
January 19, 1981, p. 6.

146Candace Lyle Hogan, "A Token of Friendship,”
Coaching: Women's Athletics, March/April 1981, p. 21.

 

78

membership loss and an additional 12 percent of its
membership» while retaining its active membership status,
would not participate in AIAW championships. The loss of
membership and championship participation came predominantly
from Division I, the highest level competitive division.
Previously» the AIAW’had derived 50 percent of all of its
revenue from Division I. The financial impact of the
decisions of those institutions to leave the AIAW fold was
extreme.147

The National Broadcasting Corporation cancelled its
contract to broadcast Division I championships with the AIAW
due to the dilution of the quality of those events. The
AIAW charged that the loss of that contract as well as the
loss of membership and championship participants was
directly attributable to the NCAA decision to begin womenis
championships. In an effort to prevent further damage to
the organization, the AIAW leadership filed suit against the
NCAA in Cmtober 1981. The suit charged the NCAA with
violating anti-trust laws and asked that the court require
the NCAA to refrain from sponsoring women's championships.
The AIAW suit alleged that the NCAA persuaded the commercial
sponsors which the organization had acquired and the
broadcaster to withdraw support from the remaining AIAW
events. In response to the charges, William D. Kramer,

attorney for the NCAA said:

 

147Lea Pierce, ”AIAW/NCAA: The Big Switch,"
Sportswoman's T.E.A.M. Basketball Digest, October 1981,
p. 34.

79

The field, until very recently, has been

exclusively controlled by the AIAW. The anti-

trust laws are designed to promote competition,

not to preserve the position of an orgfgization

already dominant in a particular field.

The AIAW completed its 1981-82 championship format.
At what was to be the last AIAW Delegate Assembly in January
1981, delegates approved a resolution which stated that if
judicial relief was not received by July 1, 1982, no members

would be accepted for 1982-83. Merrily Baker, incoming AIAW

president said:

Regardless of what the future held for the
organization, delegates could be proud that they
had created.an alternative governance structure
for women's athletics, one that gave women a
chance to develop as athletic leaders and
recognized that athletic administrators must
consider students as students above all else and
construct athletic programs and models of
governance so that their time to develop as
thinking and feeling human beings is got deformed
by the demands of athletic pursuits.14

The court took no action to bar the NCAA championships
and the AIAW sent out no membership applications for 1982-
83. It was felt that if the AIAW should win its suit, it
could resume operations in 1983-84. On June 30, 1982, the
AIAW suspended all organizational activities and virtually
ceased to exist. On March 9, 1983, Judge Thomas P. Jackson

of the United States District Court for the District of

 

l48Cheryl M. Fields, “Ban Sought Against NCAA Women's
Championshipsfl'The Chronicle of Higher Education, October
21, 1981, p. 13.

149Cheryl M. Fields, “Women's Sports Group Plans for
Possible Dissolution," The Chronicle of Higher Education,
January 20, 1982, p. 5.

 

80

Columbia ruled that the NCAA did not violate the anti-trust
laws in the development and sponsorship of women's
intercollegiate championships.150 The NCAA became the only
organization governing and sponsoring championships for
major college athletic programs. The organization continued
to add championship offerings until it reached a total of
thirty-one championships sponsored for women in 1983-84.151

The impact of the activity in the areas of sport
governance and Title IX has been seen to have been both
positive and negative» A September 1975 statement by the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare indicated that
changes in administrative structure or coaching assignment
which had disproportionately adverse effect on the
employment opportunities of one sex were prohibited by the
Title IX regulations.152 While Sisley felt that Title IX
legislation had created opportunities for women in
leadership positions in girls and womenF51athletics, many

disagreed with her.153 In spite of the HEW statement, most

 

150Cheryl M. Fields, "Court Rejects Claim of Women's
Group that NCAA Violated Anti-Trust Law,“ The Chronicle of
Higher Education, March 9, 1983, p. 17.

 

 

151National Collegiate Athletic Association, NCAA
Championships: Dates and Sites (Mission, Kansas: National
Collegiate Athletic Association, September 1983): P. 15.

152Bonnie L. Parkhouse and Jackie Lapin, Women Who Win
(Englewood, N.J.: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1980), p. 35.

 

153Becky L. Sisley, "Women in Administration: A Quest
for Leadershipq'.Journal of Physical Education and Recrea-
tion, April 1981, p. 77.

81

women's intercollegiate athletic departments have been
merged with men's departments. Hult stated:
Women are now losing decision-making power on
individual campuses. When women's athletics are
combined with men's athletics, men are most often
delegated as administrators of the entire program
and the wafflen relegated to assistants or
assoc1ates.

LOpiano reinforced Hultfls earlier contention, saying
that whereas 95 percent of all women's programs had
previously been administered by women under separate
department structures, the number was now down to 14
percent.155

In addition to apparent loss of ground in the
administrative portion of employment and power of women in
intercollegiate athletics, there have been significant
changes in the composition of coaching staffs since the
passage of Title IX. In the first eight years following its
passage, the number of coaching positions available in
women's athletics increased by 136 percent. Accompanying
that, however, was a 20 percent decrease in the number of
women who occupied these positions.156

On the positive side, nearly every writer in the area

of Title IX indicated that due to the passage of the

regulation, there was more money available in women's

 

154Joan S. Hult, ”The Philosophical Conflicts in Menfs
and Women's Collegiate Athletics," Quest, 1980, p. 87.

155"A Donna Lopiano Eye-View of Womenfs Sports in
America,” Scholastic Coach, January 1984, p. 32.

 

156Ibid.

82

athletics, and therefore, competitive opportunities were
better. Women's teams enjoy more and better travel, more
competitive and longer schedules, more and better
coaches, and far greater opportunities to receive athletic
scholarships.

The struggle over the interpretation of Title IX and
its relationship to intercollegiate athletics has continued.
Since 1981, there has been very little enforcement of
Title IX. Rather than finding institutions in violation of
the Title IX regulations, five-year plans to come into
compliance have been accepted from institutions who have
been investigated. The February 1984 United States Supreme
Court decision in the Grove City College v Bell case further
reduced the pace of investigations of complaints. The Court
indicated that Title IX was only applicable to programs
which received direct federal funding. That decision
significantly narrowed the focus of the legislation and

created new vulnerabilities for women's athletics.157

Summary

The founding of women's colleges in the United States
provided the setting for the development of women's
intercollegiate athletics. Prior to the existence of those
schools, women were thought to be too delicate to withstand

the rigors of college level study. Ideal women of the early

 

157"Equal Rights in Education," Capitol: Woman,
November 1984, p. 1.

 

83

nineteenth century were expected to embody the concept of
fragility. By the late 18605, women had become active in
physical activities such as croquet and archery which could
be performed gracefully.

The introduction of the safety bicycle, along with the
modification of previously bulky women's clothing, opened
the door of active participation for many women.
Competitive Sport.for women at the collegiate level was well
established by the 18905. Basketball became a very popular
activity. Extensive discussion over the appropriateness of
that sport for college women led to the beginning of
standardized conduct and governance of collegiate programs.
By 1900, sport was an integral part of most collegiate
physical education programs.

Women's collegiate sport was firmly in the control of
women physical educators in the early twentieth century. As
the programs grew in complexity, the American Physical
Education Association appointed a committee to set standards
for women's activities. Organized opposition to competitive
sports for women grew at the same time. Many women felt
that competition was injurious to the health of the
participants.

World War I and the ratification of the 19th Amendment
resulted in great gains for women's sports. Women were
encouraged to be physically strong to respond to the new
responsibilities placed on them during war. The Women's

Division of the National Amateur Athletic Federation was

84

established in 1923 to regulate women's sport activities.
It, and several other groups activeein the area of‘women's
sports, developed and promoted the play day concept. Play
days included sport activities where play for its own sake
was emphasized over competition or rewards. As a result of
the promotion of the play day concept, competitive
intercollegiate athletics for women were virtually
eliminated.

The Great Depression further traditionalized the role
of women. Sport activities took place on individual college
campuses but did not involve competition with outside
groups. There were few opportunities for high-level
competition and no support for gifted female athletes.

World War II re-emphasized the need for every girl and
woman to be physically fit. Physical education and
intramural programs flourished at the collegiate level but
no avenue existed for the highly skilled female. The
Division for Girls and Women's Sports governed
intercollegiate activity and that organization supported
sports days, play days, and telegraphic meets.

In 1958, the DGWS expanded its statement of philosophy
to endorse competitive activities for highly-skilled women
sponsored by non-school agencies. The stereotype of the
athletic female was destroyed by Wilma Rudolph who, with
beauty and grace, won three gold medals in the 1960

Olympics. The DGWS responded in 1963 by encouraging the

85

develOpment of competitive opportunities for highly-skilled
women athletes at the collegiate level.

The governance of women's intercollegiate athletics
came to rest with the Commission for Intercollegiate
Athletics for Women. The CIAW was appointed in 1967 by the
DGWS to create the leadership necessary for the expanding
women's intercollegiate athletic programs. That
organization began the administration of womenfls collegiate
national championships in four sports. In 1972, the CIAW
became the Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for
Women which continued to provide leadership for women's
programs and expanded the national championship format to
meet the growing needs.

The passage of Title IX of the Education Amendments of
1972 resulted in significant changes to competitive
opportunities for collegiate women. The law prohibited sex
discrimination in federally funded programs and provided the
impetus necessary to markedly improve many collegiate
programs. Women's programs were to be provided with equal
shares of athletic budget money, equipment, and facilities.

The potential impact of the law on men's athletics
stirred the National Collegiate Athletic Association to
lobby strongly for its change and later for the exclusion of
athletics from its provisions. The NCAA cited the fact that
most menfs programs were already operating in a deficit mode
as support for the non-expansion of women's athletics.

Women's groups, such as the AIAW, hailed the law as the

86

leverage required to make great improvements in the quality
of services and programs provided for female athletes.

After much discussion and several draft sets of
interpretations by the United States Department of Health,
Education, and Welfarefls Office for Civil Rights, the law
became effective on July 21, 1975. Institutions were
required to conduct self-evaluations as well as submit and
implement plans to remedy deficiencies identified in the
study.

While individual. institutions struggled with the
implementation of'Title IX, women administrators began to
disagree as to the direction for women's competitive
programs. While some believed programs should stay small in
scale, others promoted the development of wide scale,
'visible programs of womenIs athletics much like existing
men's programs.

That philosophical difference resulted in NCAA action
to govern women's intercollegiate sports. In 1980, amid
much controversy, the NCAA voted to sponsor five women's
championships. The following year, in 1981, additional
championships and a governance plan for women's athletics
were approved by the NCAA membership.

The AIAW fought against those NCAA actions and charged
that the NCAA was attempting to take over womenfs athletics.
The AIAW charged that women would effectively lose control
of women's sports and filed a lawsuit which alleged that the

NCAA had violated anti-trust laws.

87

That lawsuit was denied and the AIAW, after
significant membership loss, ceased all activities on
June 30, 1982. The NCAA was left as the only sport

governing organization for major college athletics.

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

Introduction

 

As indicated in Chapter 1, this study was an examina-
tion of the role of the woman athletic administrator in the
institutional decision-making processes related to the
governance of womenis intercollegiate athletics. The exami-
nation included a description of the role of the woman
athletic administrator in the institutional decision-making
processes regarding the administration and governance of
women's intercollegiate athletics at the institutional,
conference, and national levels. Secondly, a somewhat
briefer description of the role of the Director of Athletics
in the same processes regarding the administration and
governance of women's intercollegiate athletics was
included. Finallyn the perceptions of the woman athletic
administrator regarding her role in the institutional
decision-making processes relative to the administration and
governance of women's intercollegiate athletics were com-
pared with the perceptions of the Director of Athletics
regarding the role of the primary woman athletic
administrator in the same process.

Chapter 2 contained a review of the literature in the

area of the history of the administration and governance of

88

89

womends intercollegiate athletics. The review detailed the
variety of organizations which have governed or attempted to
govern women's athletics from 1833 to the present.

This chapter includes descriptions of the derivation
Of the study, the population, the sampling procedures used,
the survey instruments, the method of data collection, and

details of the coding and data analysis procedures used.

Derivation of the Study

 

The researcher has been an Associate Director of
Athletics at Western Michigan University since 1976. During
this period, she has experienced, both on a personal and on
a professional level, the growth of womenfls intercollegiate
athletics, the development and dissolution of the
Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women (AIAW),
and the entry of the National Collegiate Athletic
Association (NCAA) into the administration and governance of
womenfs intercollegiate athletics. It has appeared to the
researcher that the role of the woman administrator in the
decision-making processes of administration and governance
Of women's intercollegiate athletics has changed often
throughout the last decade.

As evidenced by the review of literature in
Chapter 2, many women athletic administrators felt that the
entry of the NCAA into the arena of women's intercollegiate
athletics would severely limit the impact of and potential
for leadership Opportunities for women administrators.

These critics felt that the leaders of the NCAA, being

90

almost entirely male» would engineer a system Of
administration and governance which would not recognize the
existing differences between the needs of fledgling womenus
programs and well-established men's programs. Further, it
was speculated by many critics that women administrators and
their input would be swallowed up by the male-dominated
structure of the organization.

The governance plan adopted by the NCAA membership for
application to women's programs did include modifications of
the structure to include the input of women administrators.
The most viSible modification was the addition of a fourth
delegate to the annual Convention with the power to speak on
the Convention floor and to vote on legislation presented.
Personal attendance by the researcher at recent NCAA
Conventions has shown that fewer women each year appear to
have been certified by their institutional Chief Executive
Officers to receive delegate or alternate credentials. They
have, instead, received visitors credentials which<k>not
entitle the wearer to speak on the Convention floor or to
vote. This personal observation led the researcher to
speculate as to whether the apparent decrease in the impact
of women administrators at the national level of governance
was a reflection of what was occurring at the conference
and/or institutional levels.

The original intent of the researcher was to compare
the role of the woman athletic administrator in the

institutdtnual decision-making processes regarding the

91

national governance of women's intercollegiate athletics
under the AIAW with the role of the woman administrator in
the same processes under NCAA governance. It quickly became
apparent that there were significant problems inherent in a
study which spanned time. The researcher then decided to
focus on a description of the role of the present day woman

athletic administrator.

Population

 

To determine the role of the woman athletic
administrator in the institutional decision-making processes
regarding the administration and governance of womenus
intercollegiate athletics, the NCAA member institutions in
Division I were chosen for study. The Division I member
institutions have committed themselves, by virtue of their
Division I membership, to competition at the highest level
within the NCAA. Although the member institutions within
Division I are heterogeneous in many respects, they are
homogeneous with regard to their aspirations for high-level
athletic excellence.

The Directors of Athletics and Primary Women
Administrators at institutions which held membership in NCAA
Division I during the 1984-85 academic year represented the
population for this study. Membership in Division I was
determined by use of the NCAA Directory 1984-85. The names

of the Directors of Athletics and Primary Women

92

Administrators at each Division I institution were also
obtained by using the listings provided in that publication.

The NCAA Directory 1984-85 indicated that 284
institutions held membership in Division I during that

academic year.1

The Directors of Athletics and the Primary
Women Administrators at1all 284 institutions were surveyed
for this study. The population, therefore, totaled 568
individuals.

Prior to the distribution of any survey materials to
the participants, approval for the study was sought from the
University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects

(UCRIHS). On June 27, 1985 such approval was received. A

copy Of the UCRIHS approval letter is found in Appendix A.

Sampling Procedures

 

The Directors of Athletics and the Primary Women
Administrators at all of the 284 NCAA Division I
institutions served as the population for this study. There
was no sample drawn from the population. The population
was, instead, surveyed in its entirety. The population size

was 568.

Survenynstruments

 

For the purpose of generating data to examine the role
of the woman athletic administrator, two survey instruments

were developed.

 

1National Collegiate Athletic Association, NCAA
Directory 1984-85 (Mission, Kansas: National Collegiate
Athletic Association, 1984), pp. 40-96.

 

93

The first instrument was designed to describe the role
of the woman athletic administrator in the institutional
decision-making processes related to the administration and
governance of women's intercollegiate athletics. The
questionnaire was divided into four sections. They dealt
with: (1) institutional administration and governance,
(2) conference administration and governance, CH national
administration and governance, and (4) demographic
information. This survey instrument was sent to Primary
Women Administrators.

The second instrument was designed to describe the
role Of the Director of Athletics in the institutional
decision-making processes related to the administration and
governance of women's intercollegiate athletics.
Additionally, this instrument was designed to determine the
role of the woman athletic administrator in the same
processes as perceived by the Director of Athletics. The
second questionnaire was also divided into the same four
sections: (1) institutional administration and governance,
(2) conference administration and governance, (3) national
administration and governance, and (4) demographic
information.

Each questionnaire was field tested to ensure that the
questions contained were as clear as possible, the order in
which the questions were presented was logical, and that the
kind Of data which would be returned would be usable to the

researcher. The field testing identified several major

94

problems, primarily in the area of terminology, which were
corrected before the instruments were distributed.

A c0py of the first questionnaire, that which went to
Primary Women Administrators, is included as Appendix B. A
COpy of the second questionnaire, that which went to
Directors of Athletics, can be found in Appendix C.

The survey instruments distributed in this study were
professionally type-set and printed. The result of that
effort was a questionnaire which was attractive,
professional in appearance, and as easy to complete as
possible. Comments made by respondents on the instruments
supported that statement and most certainly contributed to

the rate of response.

Data Collection

 

A mail survey was employed tO«cOllect data for this
study. Given the large number of individuals selected for
participation (568) and the geographic locations of the
institutions at which they were employed, that method was
the only reasonable approach.

The first mailing was sent via first-class mail to
each of the 568 participants on July 27, 1985. The mailing
contained a highly personalized cover letter which explained
the purpose of the study and requested the participation of
the individual. The mailing also contained the appropriate
survey instrument, a self-addressed, stamped envelope for
return of the questionnaire, and a postcard on which

participants could indicate their desire to receive a

95

summary of the results of the study. Great care was taken,
due to the size of the mailing, to ensure the accuracy of
the materials which were mailed. Effort was also Spent in
the preparation of the mailing'tolensure the professional
and personal appearance of each item. Each letter and
envelope were personalized to maximize the response rate.
Nothing was mailed which had the appearance of being part of
a mass mailing. The cover letters were typed on paper with
no letterhead. The researcher did, however, use her
professional title on the cover letter and the return
envelopes were printed with the logo of the Western Michigan
University Division of Intercollegiate Athletics. COpies of
the cover letters used and the results request form are
included in Appendix D.

The first returns were received on August 1, 1985.
The initial cover letter had requested that the participants
return their questionnaires by August 16, 1985.

Prior to mailing, each questionnaire had been coded to
permit the researcher to do a follow-up mailing to non-
respondents. This coding was accomplished by the
development of a master list of all Division I institutions
and the assignment of a distinct code to each Director Of
Athletics'lquestionnaire as well as to each Primary Woman
Administrator's questionnaire.

A second mailing was sent via first-class mail to non-
respondents on August 18, 1985. That mailing included a

cover letter which again requested participation in the

96

study, a second copy of the appropriate survey instrument, a
self-addressed, stamped envelope for return of the
questionnaire, and a results request postcard. The cover
letter requested the return of the survey instrument by
August 30, 1985. A copy of the second cover letter can be
found in Appendix E.

A total of 291 survey instruments were returned. That
number constituted a response rate of 51 percent. Of the
291 which were returned, forty-seven were judged by the
researcher to be inappropriate for inclusion in the study.
Those forty-seven fell into one of the following categories
of unusable questionnaires:

1. The questionnaire was returned uncompleted with a
note which indicated that the institution had no
woman athletic administrator.

2. The questionnaire was returned completed but with
a note which indicated that it had not been
completed by the person to whom it had originally
been sent. Questionnaires were returned with
notes which indicated that the Director of
Athletics had requested that the Primary Woman
Administrator complete the Director of Athletics
questionnaire.

3. The questionnaire was returned uncompleted with a
note which indicated that the institutional
athletic departmental structure did not permit

completion of the questionnaire.

97

Of the forty-seven questionnaires judged to be
inappropriate for inclusion in the study, the largest number
(thirty-five or 74 percent) were in category 1.

A summary of the response rates is included in

Appendix F.

Coding and Data Entry

As each returned questionnaire was received, it was
recorded as having been received and the data contained in
the response were prepared for entry into the computer. The
responses on each questionnaire were carefully checked for
accuracy and consistency.

There were questionnaires returned which were
incomplete. The section on conference processes on each
questionnaire resulted in the largest occurrence of
unanswered questions. That can be attributed to the fact
that not all Division I institutions are members of
conferences. Those questionnaires from individuals whose
institutions are not members of conferences were identified
and were not included in the analysis of those questions.
,All other questions which were not completed were recorded
as missing data. The incidence of uncompleted questions was
so small that.it was judged by statistical consultants at
the Western Michigan University Computer Center as being

statistically insignificant.

98

The data were entered into the computer in early
September 1985. Following the entry of the data, they were

edited to further check for accuracy and consistency.

Data Analysis Procedures

 

Following the identification of the research questions
listed in the Purposes section of Chapter 1 and the
generation of the data through the use of the two survey
instruments, the data gathered were categorized with regard
to their pertinence to each research question. It was
determined by the researcher that four of the questions (1,
2, 5, & 6) were descriptive in nature and the data were
analyzed using frequency counts and response percentages.

The remaining three questions (3, 4, & 7) required
other methods of analysis. It was determined by the
researcher that the calculation of chi-square values and
probabilities would speak to the statistical significance of
the items pertinent to those questions. In each instance
where statistical significance was determined, either the
phi coefficient or CramerHs‘V value was calculated to
determine the strength of the association between variables.

That method of data analysis was judged to be
appropriateeby the statistical consultants at the Western

Michigan University Computer Center. With the assistance Of

99

that Office, the data were analyzed by the computer using

The System for Statistics program (SYSTAT).2

 

2The Systat Network, The S stem for Statistics

(SYSTAT) version 2.1 (Evanston, I linois: SYSTAT, Inc.,
1984).

CHAPTER 4

ANALYSIS OF DATA

Introduction

 

The purpose of this study was to examine the role of
the primary woman athletic administrator in the
institutional decision-making processes regarding the
administration and governance of women's intercollegiate
athletics. The role of the woman athletic administratOr in
institutional administration and governance, conference
governance, and national governance was studied.
Comparisons between the roles of the primary woman athletic
administrator and the Director of Athletics in the same sets
of processes were drawn. This chapter contains the analysis
of the data generated by means of the two survey instruments
described in Chapter 3.

Due to the large volume of data, the frequencies and
response percentages for both questionnaires are detailed in
the Appendices. The frequencies and percentages for the
primary woman athletic administrator instrument are found in
Appendix G. The data generated by the Director of Athletics
instrument are found in Appendix H.

This chapter is sub-divided to facilitate the
reporting of the data. Each of the seven research questions

identified in Chapter 1 is listed, if appropriate the

100

101

hypothesis being tested is stated, the data are detailed,

and the hypothesis, if stated, is accepted or rejected.

Analysis of Procedures

 

The descriptive method of research was followed where
its application was appropriate in this study. Where the
data permitted, statistical significance was determined by
the calculation of the chi-square value. The Pearson chi-
square value was calculated in most instances. In the cases
where the expected frequency in any cell was less than five,
Yates correction was applied.

The level of statistical significance established for
this study was .05. Where significance was shown at the .05
level, the phi-coefficient or Cramer's V value was
calculated to further define the association of the
'variables. The phi-coefficient.was used for.all fourfold
tables. Cramer's V was employed to adjust for the unequal
dimensions of all other tables.

In the testing of the hypotheses, the finding of
statistical significance or the lack Of statistical
significance in a majority Of the items studied led to the

rejection or non-rejection Of the null hypotheses.

Analysis

Research Question 1
Research question 1 was as follows:

Describe the perceived role of the primary woman
athletic administrator in the institutional
decision-making processes regarding the
administration and governance of women's

102
intercollegiate athletics at the institutional,
conference, and national levels.
As has been previously indicated, the frequency counts and
response percentages for each question included in the
primary woman athletic administrator survey instrument
appear in Appendix G. The data are summarized and discussed

here.

Section I - Institutional Decision-Making Processes

 

The questions in Section I asked the primary woman
athletic administrator to describe her role in the
institutional administrative and governance processes
related to women's intercollegiate athletics.

The responses to question l.a. clearly indicate (87.6
percent) that the decisions made by the primary woman
athletic administrator can be overruled by another athletic
administrator. That administrator, in 88.2 percent of the
responses, is the Director of Athletics as is indicated by
the responses to question 1.b. The small percentage Of
respondents who report that no athletic administrator can
overrule their decisions are those individuals whose titles
are Director of Womenis Athletics.

The data indicate that the woman athletic
administrator meets regularly with the Director Of Athletics
and other athletic administrators such as Associate and
Assistant Athletic Directors. The primary woman athletic
administrator meets occasionally with the Faculty Athletic

Representative, the administrative officer to whom Athletics

103

reports if euun and the institutional Chief Executive
Officer.

Almost 60 percent of the women administrators who
responded to the survey serve as members of their
institutional Athletic Board or Council. The appointment of
the woman administrator is ex-officio in nature and she has
no vote. Of the respondents who do not have appointments to
their institutional Athletic Board or Council, 72.3 percent
do not regularly attend the meetings Of the group and 78
percent do not meet regularly with the Athletic Board or
Council chair.

The data reveal that the primary woman athletic
administrator is active in intra-institutional committees
amd in extra-institutional organizations. Over 50 percent
of the respondents indicate that they serve on institutional
standing and/or special committees. These positions are
<:learly appointed rather than elected as evidenced by the
responses to questions 8.c., 8.d., 9.b., and 9.c.

The responses to question 10 are capsulized in
Table 1. The table provides the response percentage for

each response category and indicates the modal response.

104

TABLE 1

RESPONSE PERCENTAGES FOR QUESTION 10
REGARDING TYPE OF INVOLVEMENT BY THE
PRIMARY WOMAN ADMINISTRATOR IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF AREAS IN
WOMEN'S ATHLETICS

 

 

 

Decision- Consultative Advisory Modal
Question Maker (1) Capacity (2) Capacity (3) Response
10a 32.4 44.1 23.5 2
10b 55.0 26.7 18.3 1
10c 34.6 35.4 30.0 2
10d 58.4 34.3 7.3 1
10e 29.1 50.0 20.9 2
10f 38.9 26.7 34.4 1
109 45.9 37.8 16.3 1
10h 31.3 38.8 29.9 2
10i 38.2 25.2 36.6 1
10j 62.8 24.8 12.4 1
10k 41.2 39.0 19.9 1
101 48.9 23.7 27.5 1
10m 27.5 44.3 28.2 2
10n 26.5 43.9 29.6 2
100 20.3 38.3 41.4 3
10p 22.0 34.1 43.9 3
10q 58.5 28.9 12.6 1
10r 38.2 42.7 19.1 2
105 22.7 32.0 45.3 3
10t 16.2 42.3 41.5 2
10u 13.0 42.0 45.0 3
10v1 50.4 33.8 15.8 1
10v2 50.4 33.1 16.5 1
10v3 38.6 40.2 21.2 2
10w 45.7 38.8 15.5 1
10x 17.0 24.1 58.9 3
10y 13.0 30.5 56.5 3
102 37.3 32.5 30.2 1
10aa 43.8 33.1 23.1 1
10bb 36.6 43.3 20.1 2
10cc 40.7 28.9 30.4 1
10dd 23.1 49.3 27.6 2
10ee 28.6 37.6 33.8 2
10ff 24.0 38.0 38.0 2 an
1099 19.4 56.7 23.9 2
10hh 29.0 32.1 38.9 3

 

105

The primary woman athletic administrator views her
role as being that of a decision-maker in fifteen Of the
thirty-six categories. The most significant of the areas
are the hiring of coaching personnel and athletic
scholarship allocation.

In thirteen of the thirty-six categories, the primary
woman athletic administrator describes her role as having a
consultative capacity. Of those thirteen areas, the most
significant are budget development, the size of the
intercollegiate athletic program,auuithe development of
institutional athletic policy.

An advisory capacity describes the role Of the primary
woman athletic administrator in seven of the thirty-six
categories. Notations appear on many of the returned
surveys indicating thatru>athletic administrator has any
more than advisory role in non-athletic financial aid
allocation, admission of student-athletes, and academic
advisement of student-athletes.

The response percentages are equal (38.0 percent) in
the consultative capacity and advisory capacity categories
in the area of fund raising.

Over 66 percent of the respondents indicate that their
institution has sports which have been identified to strive
for national prominence. The primary woman athletic
administrator indicates involvement in the identification
process in 83.9 percent Of the cases as evidenced by the

responses to question 12.

106

The woman athletic administrator does not appear to
have sports assigned to her for which her administrative
decisions cannot be overruled by another athletic
administrator. Of the small percentage (25.4 percent) of
women administrators who do have such authority in certain
sports, the sports assigned are largely women's sports.
Only two individuals report having menfls sports under their

complete administrative control.

Section II - Conference Decision-Making;Processes

 

The data show that 93.5 percent of the respondents are
employed by institutions which are affiliated with a
conference for womenfls sports. The responses to question 3
indicate that the conferences to which the respondents
belong are integrated in 69.8 percent of the cases. A large
number of respondents indicate that even though their
institutions currently belong to a segregated (womenfs only)
conference, integration of the conference in which their
men's programs participate is in the near future.

The responses to questions 8 and 9 indicate that
conference affiliation for women's programs is a fairly
recent happening. Both conference affiliation and
conference governance of women's programs has occurred in
over 50 percent of the cases since 1981. That date
coincides with.the year in‘which the NCAA began its formal
involvement in the governance of women's intercollegiate

athletics on a national level.

107

The institutions which hold membership in the same
integrated conference for menis.and‘women's programs have
conference regulations which are similar for men and women.
Comments in response to question 10 indicate that the
differences which do exist in some conferences relate to
sport playing rules and the method of conducting conference
championships.

The data reveal that the primary woman athletic
administrator is recognized as a part of the conference
governance structure. The woman administrator does have a
role in the decision-making process at the conference level.
In 58 percent of the cases, the woman administrator views
that role as consultative in nature. The responses to
question 15 indicate that the input of the conference women
administrators is referred1x>the conference Directors of
Athletics group in 33.6 percent of the instances. The input
of the woman administrator on conference issues is referred
to more than one of the groups as is indicated in 31 percent
of the instances.

The primary women athletic administrators group in the
conference structure meets on a regular basis and those
meetings are held in conjunction with other regularly
scheduled conference meetings. The responses to question 18
indicate that 78.6 percent of the responding primary women
athletic administrators regularly attend the meetings of

their conference.

108

The conference commissioner meets with the primary
women administrators group as reported by 80.6 percent of
the respondents. Of the respondents who indicate that the
conference commissioner does meet with the women
administrators group, 61.5 percent indicate that that
individual meets regularly with the group. Over 55 percent
of the conferences identified in this study have a woman
administrator on staff. That individual most often carries
the title of Assistant Commissioner.

The data show that women do have a role in the
conference structure through participation in conference
governance. Women conference Officers (n: committee chairs
are indicated as existing by 62.8 percent of the
respondents. A large number of respondents indicate that
women serve (n1 standing and special committees. That
statement is supported by affirmative response percentages

to questions 23.a. and 23.b. of over 84 percent.

Section III - National Decision-Making Processes

 

Of the individuals who completed the questionnaire,
94.8 percent are the institutionally-designated NCAA Primary
Woman Administrator.

The data indicate that attendance at NCAA Conventions
by the woman athletic administrator has increased each year

since 1981. Table 2 describes the increases reported.

109

TABLE 2

ATTENDANCE AT NCAA CONVENTIONS BY
PRIMARY WOMEN ADMINISTRATORS

 

 

Percentage of Respondents

Year (Site) Who Attended

 

1981 (Miami Beach) 41.8
1982 (Houston) 55.6
1983 (San Diego) 69.6
1984 (Dallas) 78.2
1985 (Nashville) 78.4

 

The responses to questions 2.a.2., 2.b.2., 2.c.2.,
2.d.2., and 2.e.2. indicate that a very large percentage of
those women administrators who attended the NCAA Conventions
in the years specified were issued delegate credentials.
The specific percentages range from 57.5 in 1981 to 64.6 in
1983.

Table 3 addresses participation at NCAA Conventions.

The responses to questions 3 and 4 in the areas of voting

and speaking at the Conventions are indicated.

TABLE 3

PARTICIPATION AT NCAA CONVENTIONS
BY PRIMARY WOMEN ADMINISTRATORS

 

 

 

Year (Site) Voted Spoke on the Floor
1981 (Miami Beach) 70.3 38.5
1982 (Houston) 69.6 16.4
1983 (San Diego) 68.5 22.4
1984 (Dallas) 76.5 27.3
1985 (Nashville) 81.2 20.7

 

110

The responses to questions 7 and 10 indicate that the
institutional position in NCAA proposals which affect
womenfs rules and regulations is determined through dialogue
among the primary woman athletic administrator, the Director
of Athletics, the Faculty Athletic Representative, and the
institutional Chief Executive:Officer. The primary woman
athletic administrator does have input in the process as
indicated by an affirmative response rate Of 93.8 percent to
question 8. Only 22.3 percent of the respondents indicate,
however, that they make the final decision on the
institutional position on NCAA legislation which affects
women's rules and regulations.

The woman athletic administrator is able to propose
NCAA legislation. That happens most often through the
institutional Chief Executive Officer.

Fifty percent of the respondents indicate that they
have contacted their conference representative to the NCAA
Council or any NCAA Council member to affect change on
proposals which affect women's rules and regulations. Over
59 percent indicate that they have contacted a woman on the
NCAA Council for the same purpose.

The responses to questions 18.a..and 18.b. indicate
that almost 85 percent of the responding primary women
athletic administrators do not serve on any NCAA sports or

standing committee.

111

Section IV - Demographic Information

 

The primary woman athletic administrator is most Often
(36.3 percent) an Associate Athletic Director. Fifty-seven
percent of the respondents have been working in their
present positions since 1977. Generally, the woman athletic
administrator does not teach, coach, or perform any other
duties. Of those who have responsibilities other than
administrative duties in athletics, the largest number teach
(26.4 percent). The woman athletic administrator is most
often between forty-one and fifty years of age. She works
largely in a structurally integrated athletic department as
evidenced by an affirmative response to question 7 by 81.2

percent of the respondents.

Research Question 2
Research question 2 was as follows:
Describe the perceived role of the Director of
Athletics in the institutional decision-making
processes regarding (flu: administration and
governance of womenfls intercollegiate athletics at
the institutional, conference, and national levels.
As has been previously indicated, the frequency counts and
response percentages for each question included on the

Director of Athletics survey instrument appear in

Appendix H. The data are summarized and discussed here.

Section I - Institutional Decision-Making Processes

 

The responses generated by question 1.a. indicate that
in 87.6 percent of the instances, the decisions Of the

primary woman athletic administrator can be overruled by

112

another athletic administrator. The individual most often
able to overrule those decisions is the Director of
Athletics.

The Director of Athletics meets regularly with the
primary woman athletic administrator, other athletic
administrators such as Associate and Assistant Athletic
Directors, and with the administrative officer to whom
Athletics reports. The Director of Athletics meets
occasionally with the Faculty Athletic Representative and
the Chief Executive Officer.

The responses to question 4 are capsulized in Table 4.
The table provides the response percentage for each response

category and indicates the modal response.

TABLE 4

RESPONSE PERCENTAGES FOR QUESTION 4
REGARDING TYPE OF INVOLVEMENT BY
THE DIRECTOR OF ATHLETICS IN THE

ADMINISTRATION OF AREAS IN
WOMEN'S ATHLETICS

 

 

Decision- Consultative Advisory Modal
Question Maker (1) Capacity (2) Capacity (3) Response

 

4a 73.1 19.2 7.7 1
4b 70.9 19.4 9.7 1
4c 67.7 25.3 7.1 1
4d 68.9 23.3 7.8 1
4e 65.7 24.8 9.5 1
4f 56.3 23.3 20.4 1
49 73.1 17.3 9.6 1
4h 68.3 22.1 9.6 1
4i 51.5 30.1 18.4 1
4j 65.1 22.3 12.6 1
4k 59.2 26.2 14.6 1
41 49.5 33.7 16.8 1
4m 68.0 23.3 8.7 1
4n 65.0 24.3 10.7 1

113

TABLE 4-Continued

 

 

 

Decision- Consultative Advisory Modal
Question Maker (1) Capacity (2) Capacity (3) Response

 

4o 55.9 31.4 12.77' 1
4p 45.5 32.3 22.2 1
4q 47.6 33.0 19.4 1
4r 51.9 31.7 16.3 1
45 37.5 34.6 27.9 1
4t 51.5 39.8 8.7 1
4u 51.0 36.5 12.5 1
4v1 65.0 23.3 11.7 1
4v2 60.4 27.7 11.9 1
4v3 67.7 22.2 10.1 1
4w 56.1 29.6 14.3 1
4x 26.6 33.0 40.4 3
4y 15.4 35.2 49.5 3
42 37.0 30.0 33.0 1
4aa 45.7 32.0 22.3 1
4bb 52.9 27.5 19.6 1
4cc 32.0 27.0 41.0 3
4dd 56.7 34.6 8.7 1
4ee 53.8 26.9 19.2 1
4ff 50.0 31.4 18.6 1
499 60.6 29.8 9.6 1
4hh 29.4 33.3 37.3 3

 

The Director of Athletics views his/her role as being
that of a decision-maker in thirty-two of the thirty-six
categories. Notations appear on many (ms the returned
surveys indicating that no athletic administrator has any
more than an advisory role in the allocation of non-athletic
financial aid, the admission of student-athletes, and the
academic advisement of student-athletes. As also noted by
the respondents, the decision-making authority for the area
of recruitment of student-athletes rests with the coaches.

The responses to question 5 are capsulized in Table 5.
The table provides the response percentages for each

response category and indicates the modal response. The

114

data reveal that the Director of Athletics views the role of
the primary woman athletic administrator as consultative in
all but three areas. In the areas of facility renovation,
non-athletic financial aid allocation, and admission Of
student-athletes, the role of the primary woman athletic

administrator is viewed as being advisory in nature.

TABLE 5

RESPONSE PERCENTAGES FOR QUESTION 5 REGARDING
THE PERCEPTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF ATHLETICS OF
THE ROLE OF THE PRIMARY WOMAN ADMINISTRATOR
IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF AREAS IN
WOMEN'S ATHLETICS

 

 

Decision- Consultative Advisory Modal
Question Maker (1) Capacity (2) Capacity (3) Response

 

5a 15.4 69.2 15.4 2
5b 30.8 53.8 15.4 2
Be 17.6 64.7 17.6 2
5d 26.0 63.5 10.5 2
5e 20.2 64.4 15.4 2
5f 20.8 48.5 30.7 2
5g 24.0 65.4 10.6 2
5h 20.2 64.4 15.4 2
51 19.2 57.7 23.1 2
5j 33.7 53.8 12.5 2
5k 30.8 50.0 19.2 2
51 29.1 44.7 26.2 2
5m 15.5 63.1 21.4 2
5n 14.6 60.2 25.2 2
50 13.7 58.8 27.5 2
5p 13.9 54.5 31.7 2
5q 33.0 51.5 15.5 2
5r 19.4 56.3 24.3 2
55 10.7 43.7 45.6 3
St 7.7 58.3 34.0 2
Su 6.8 55.3 37.9 2
5vl 28.8 55.8 15.4 2
5v2 29.8 53.8 16.3 2
5v3 24.3 63.1 12.6 2
5w 26.3 54.5 19.2 2
5x 13.7 42.1 44.2 3
5y 11.0 41.7 47.3 3

115

TABLE 5-Continued

 

 

 

Decision- Consultative Advisory Modal
Question Maker (1) Capacity (2) Capacity (3) Response

 

52 15.3 51.0 33.7 2
Saa 24.0 48.0 28.0 2
Sbb 19.8 58.4 21.8 2
Sec 23.0 44.0 33.0 2
de 13.9 63.4 22.7 2
See 17.6 55.9 26.5 2
Sff 11.0 57.0 32.0 2
599 11.9 71.3 16.8 2
Shh 14.1 48.5 37.4 2

 

Seventy-nine percent of the responding Directors of
Athletics indicate that their institution has womenis sports
which have been identified to strive for national
prominence. The data Show that 86.8 percent of the
Directors Of Athletics at institutions with such sports have

been involved in the identification process.

Section II - Conference Decision-Making Processes

At institutions which hold membership in conferences
which govern womenfls intercollegiate athletics, the Director
of Athletics is recognized as a formal part of the
conference governance structure which regulates women's
athletics. The data generated in response to question 4
indicate that that is true in 84 percent of the cases. Of
those institutions in conferences where the Director of
Athletics is recognized as part of the conference governance

structure, the Director of Athletics has a role as the

116

decision-maker in matters pertinent to women's athletics in
55 percent of the instances reported.

The Director Of Athletics is active in affecting
change in conference matters pertinent to the governance of
women's athletics. The data show that 66.7 percent of the
respondents have contacted a conference administrator or

Officer to affect such change.

Section III - National Decision-Making Processes

The data reveal that the Director of Athletics has
identified a Primary Woman Administrator to the NCAA in
86.5 percent of the cases reported. That individual is a
female in 85.6 percent of the instances. Fourteen percent
Of the Directors of Athletics have designated a male NCAA
Primary Woman Administrator.

The data show that attendance by the Director of
Athletics at NCAA Conventions has increased since 1981.

Table 6 describes the nature of that increase.

TABLE 6

ATTENDANCE AT NCAA CONVENTIONS
BY DIRECTORS OF ATHLETICS

 

 

Percentage Of Respondents

 

Year (Site) Who Attended
1981 (Miami Beach) 79.3
1982 (Houston) 83.0
1983 (San Diego) 85.4
1984 (Dallas) 88.8

1985 (Nashville) 90.1

 

117

The responses to questions 3.a.2., 3.b.2., 3.c.2.,
3.d.2., and 3.e.2. indicate that a very large percentage of
respondents who attended the NCAA Conventions in the years
specified were issued delegate credentials. The percentages
ranged from a low of 77.3 in 1981 to a high of 84.3 in 1982.

Participation at NCAA Conventions is addressed in
questions 4 and 5. The data contained in Table 7 indicate
the response percentages Obtained in the areas Of voting and

speaking at the Conventions.

TABLE 7

PARTICIPATION AT NCAA CONVENTIONS
BY DIRECTORS OF ATHLETICS

 

 

 

Year (Site) Voted Spoke on the Floor
1981 (Miami Beach) 92.5 26.1
1982 (Houston) 91.5 26.0
1983 (San Diego) 93.2 34.7
1984 (Dallas) 91.5 24.7
1985 (Nashville) 94.2 32.2

 

It can be seen that while over 90 percent Of Directors
of Athletics in attendance at NCAA Conventions have
exercised their voting privileges less than one-third of all
responding Directors of Athletics spoke on the floor of the
Conventions.

The data reveal that the Director of Athletics has
input in the determination of the institutional position on
NCAA proposals which affect womenfs rules and regulations in

99.1 percent of the instances reported. That input is most

118

often accomplished through dialogue with the primary woman
athletic administrator, the Faculty Athletic Representative,
and the Chief Executive Officer. Almost 58 percent of the
respondents indicate that the Director of Athletics does not
make the final decision on the institutional position on
NCAA proposals pertinent to womenfls athletics. Seventy-six
percent Of the respondents indicate that the final authority

rests with the institutional Chief Executive Officer.

Section IV - Demographic Information

 

Of the respondents, 88.5 percent report that their
title is Director of Athletics. The majority'(54.4 percent)
report to the institutional Chief Executive Officer. Over
50 percent have begun working in their present positions
since 1979. The vast majority of respondents indicate that
they do not teach, coach, or perform any duties other than
their athletic administrative responsibilities. Of those
who do perform other duties, the largest percentage teach
(15 percent). Generallgn. the Director of Athletics is
between the ages Of fity-one and sixty. Ninety-two percent
of the respondents administer a structurally segregated

department.

Research Question 3
Research question 3 was as follows:
Compare the perceived roles of the primary woman

athletic administrator and the Director of
Athletics in the institutional decision-making

119

processes regarding (flu: administration and
governance of womenis intercollegiate athletics at
the institutional, conference, and national levels.
The hypothesis being tested was:
H01: There is no significant difference between
the perceived role of the primary woman athletic
administrator in the institutional decision-
making processes regarding the administration
and governance of women's intercollegiate
athletics at the institutional, conference, and
national levels and the perceived role of the
Director of Athletics in the same processes.
Section I - Institutional Decision-Making Processes
Table 8 details the comparison of the questions deemed
appropriate in the comparison of the roles of the primary
woman athletic administrator and the Director of Athletics
at the institutional level. The table includes the
questions being compared, the chi-square value for each
comparison, the degrees of freedom, the probability, and an
indication of the statistical significance at the .05 level.
In addition, if significance at the .05 level is determined,
the appropriate comparative statistic and its value are

indicated. The same format is used for.all tables used to

describe the comparison in research question 3.

120

TABLE 8

COMPARISON OF THE PERCEIVED ROLES OF THE PRIMARY
WOMAN ATHLETIC ADMINISTRATOR AND THE
DIRECTOR OF ATHLETICS AT THE
INSTITUTIONAL LEVEL

 

 

 

Questions Significant Comparative
Compared x2 at the Statistic a
PWA/ADl. Value df p .05 Levelz. Value
1a/1a .04 1 .8491
2b/2b 10.92 2 .0043 * Cramer's V
.2170
2c/2c 26.76 2 .0000 * Cramer's V
.3353
2d/2d 57.41 2 .0000 * Cramer's V
.4901
2e/2e 48.30 2 .0000 * ' Cramer's V
.4486
10a/4a 39.37 2 .0000 * Cramer's V
.4050
10b/4b 6.61 2 .0368 * Cramer's V
.1680
10c/4c 29.13 2 .0000 * Cramer's V
.3567
10d/4d 3.46 2 .1771
10e/4e 31.89 2 .0000 * Cramer's V
.3653
10f/4f 7.99 2 .0184 * Cramer's V
.1848
109/49 17.98 2 .0001 * Cramer's V
.2743
10h/4h 33.41 2 .0000 * Cramer's V
.3746
10i/4i 9.49 2 .0087 * Cramer's V
.2014
10j/4j .20 2 .9035
10k/4k 7.68 2 .0215 * Cramer's V
.1793
101/41 4.87 2 .0875
10m/4m 39.26 2 .0000 * Cramer's V
.4096
10n/4n 35.81 2 .0000 * Cramer's V
.3903
100/40 36.92 2 .0000 * Cramer's V
.4007
10p/4p 16.93 2 .0002 * Cramer's V
.2761
10q/4q 3.38 2 .1849
10r/4r 4.58 2 .1013

121

TABLE 8-Continued

 

 

 

 

Questions Significant Comparative
Compared x2 at the Statistic &
PWA/ADI. Value df p .05 Levelz. Value
105/4s 9.08 2 .0107 * Cramer's V
.1978
10t/4t 45.50 2 .0000 * Cramer's V
.4419
10u/4u 48.55 2 .0000 * Cramer's V
.4545
10v1/4v1 5.11 2 .0775
10v2/4v2 2.45 2 .2941
10v3/4v3 19.19 2 .0001 * Cramer's V
.2882
10w/4w 2.60 2 .2730
10x/4x 7.11 2 .0285 * Cramer's V
.1858
10y/4y 1.02 2 .5996
102/42 .26 2 .8785
10aa/4aa .07 2 .9636
10bb/4bb 7.55 2 .0229 * Cramer's V
.1789
10cc/4cc 3.12 2 .2103
10dd/4dd 31.29 2 .0000 * Cramer's V
.3626
10ee/4ee 15.96 2 .0003 * Cramer's V
.2595
10ff/4ff 18.78 2 .0001 * Cramer's V
.2851
1099/499 42.73 2 .0000 * Cramer's V
.4237
10hh/10hh .07 2 .9637
11/6 3.94 1 .0471 * phi
coefficient
.1366
12/7 .07 1 .7847

 

1 The first question number is from the primary woman
° administrator questionnaire. The second question number
is from the Director of Athletics questionnaire.
2. * = Significant at the .05 level.
The data contained in Table 8 reveal that there is

difference in the perceived roles of the primary woman

athletic administrator and the Director of Athletics in the

122

institutional decision-making processes related to the
administration and governance of women's intercollegiate
athletics in twenty-nine of the forty-three areas compared.
The most significant differences appear in the areas of the
frequency of the meetings with the college/university
administrator to whom Athletics reports and the Chief
Executive cmficer, budget development, salary negotiations
for' coaching' personnel, facility' renovation, new
construction, and the development Of institutional athletic
policy. The Cramer's V value in each of those areas is
between .40 and .50.

On the basis of the significant difference identified
in twenty-nine of the forty-three areas studied, the null

hypothesis is rejected for Section 1.

Section II - Conference Decision-Making Processes

Table 9 describes the comparison Of the perceived
roles of the primary woman athletic administrator and the
Director of Athletics in the conference decision-making
processes related to the governance of women's

intercollegiate athletics.

123

TABLE 9

COMPARISON OF THE PERCEIVED ROLES OF THE PRIMARY
WOMAN ATHLETIC ADMINISTRATOR AND THE
DIRECTOR OF ATHLETICS AT THE
CONFERENCE LEVEL

 

 

 

Questions 2 Significant Comparative

Compared x at the Statistic &
PWA/ADI. Value df p .05 Levelz. Value

14/6 5.99 2 .0005 * Cramer's V
.4810

 

1. The first question number is from the primary woman
administrator questionnaire. The second question number
is from the Director of Athletics questionnaire.

2. * = Significant at the .05 level.

The data contained in Table 9 Show that there is a
difference in the perceived roles of the primary woman
athletic administrator and the Director of Athletics in the
conference decision-making processes related to the
governance of womenfls athletics. The Director of Athletics
has a decision-making role in conference processes while the

primary woman athletic administrator has a consultative

role. The null hypothesis is rejected for Section II.

Section III - National Decision-Making Processes

Table 10 describes the comparison of the perceived
roles of the primary woman athletic administrator and the
Director of Athletics in the national decision-making
processes related 1x1 the governance of women's

intercollegiate athletics.

124

TABLE 10

COMPARISON OF THE PERCEIVED ROLES OF THE PRIMARY
WOMAN ATHLETIC ADMINISTRATOR AND THE
DIRECTOR OF ATHLETICS AT THE
NATIONAL LEVEL

 

 

 

Questions Significant Comparative
Compared x2 at the Statistic &
PWA/ADI. Value df p .05 Levelz. Value
2a1/3a1 4.76 1 .0291 * phi coefficient
.1572
2a2/3a2 12.50 2 .0019 * Cramer's V
.2600
2b1/3b1 3.58 1 .0584
2b2/3b2 9.91 2 .0101 * Cramer's V
.2266
2c1/3c1 6.13 1 .0133 * phi coefficient
.1850

2c2/3c2 no calculations possible-2 cells with frequency <5

2d /3d 15.46 1 .0001 * phi coefficient
1 1 2918

2d2/3d2 no calculations possible-2 cells with frequency <5

2e1/3el 25.32 1 .0000 * phi coefficient

.3810
2e /3e2 no calculations possible-2 cells with frequency <5

3a 4A 5.56 1 .0183 * phi coefficient
.1982

3b/4b 5.86 1 .0155 * phi coefficient
.2036

3c/4c 15.31 2 .0005 * phi coefficient
.3227

3d/4d 8.71 1 .0032 * phi coefficient
.2824

3e/4e 7.45 1 .0063 * phi coefficient
.2955

4a/5a 2.39 1 .1218

4b/5b .04 1 .8326

4c/5c 2.23 1 .1352

4d/5d 1.20 1 .2743

4e/5e 1.26 1 .2612

8/9 2.92 1 .0872

15a/14a 9.86 1 .0017 * phi coefficient

.2145
16/15 .10 1 .7573

 

1. The first question number is from the primary woman
administrator questionnaire. The second question number
is from the Director of Athletics questionnaire.

2. * = Significant at the .05 level.

125

The data described in Table 10 indicate that there is
a difference in the perceived roles of the primary woman
athletic administrator and the Director Of Athletics in the
national decision-making processes related to the governance
of women's intercollegiate athletics in twelve of the twenty
areas studied.

The most significant areas Of difference are in the
frequencies with which the primary woman athletic
administrator and the Director of Athletics exercised voting
privileges at the NCAA Conventions. The phi coefficient
values range from .1982 to .3227 for the comparisons of the
years studied.

It is interesting to note that differences are not
present in the area of the type of credentials issued to the
primary woman athletic administrator and the Director of
Athletics for NCAA Conventions. The data indicate that both
groups of individuals are unclear as to the type of
credentials they were issued. The primary woman athletic
administrator and the Director of Athletics both indicate
that they received Delegate credentials. Only one such
certification may be issued per institution at each
Convention.

On the basis of the significant difference identified
in twelve of the twenty areas studied, the null hypothesis

is rejected for Section III.

126

Summary

The null hypothesis is rejected for each of the three

sections of the comparison.

Research Question 4
Research question 4 was as follows:
Compare the perceptions of the Director Of
Athletics regarding the role of the primary woman
athletic administrator in the institutional
decision-making processes regarding the
administration and governance Of women's
intercollegiate athletics attflmzinstitutional,
conference, and national levels with the
perceptions of the puimary woman athletic
administrator of her role in the same processes.
The hypothesis being tested was:
H02: There is no significant difference between
the perceptions of the Director of Athletics
regarding the role of the primary woman
athletic administrator and the perceptions
of the primary woman athletic administrator
of her own role.
Section I - Institutional Decision-Making Processes
The data contained in Table 11 describe the comparison
of the perceptions of the primary woman athletic
administrator and the Director of Athletics regarding the
role of the primary woman athletic administrator in the
institutional decision-making processes regarding the
administration and governance of womenfs intercollegiate
athletics. The table includes the questions compared, the
chi-square value for each comparison, the degrees of
freedom, the probability, and an indication of statistical

significance at the .05 level. In addition, if significance

at the .05 level is determined, the appropriate comparative

127

statistic and its value are indicated. The same format is
followed for all tables used to describe the comparison in

research question 4.

TABLE 11

COMPARISON OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF THE PRIMARY WOMAN
ATHLETIC ADMINISTRATOR AND THE DIRECTOR OF
ATHLETICS REGARDING THE ROLE OF THE
PRIMARY WOMAN ATHLETIC ADMINISTRATOR

 

 

 

Questions Significant Comparative
Compared x2 at the Statistic &
PWA/ADI. Value df p .05 Levelz. Value
2b/3b 3.26 2 .1959
2c/3c .11 2 .9482
2d/3d .73 2 .6935
2e/3e 2.06 2 .3566
10a/5a 15.50 2 .0004 Cramer's V
.2541
10b/5b 18.98 2 .0001 Cramer's V
.2842
10c/5c 19.79 2 .0001 Cramer's V
.2921
10d/5d 25.45 2 .0000 Cramer's V
.3250
10e/5e 4.97 2 .0833
10f/5f 13.76 2 .0010 Cramer's V
.2436
109/59 18.11 2 .0001 Cramer's V
.2753
10h/5h 15.64 2 .0004 Cramer's V
.2564
10i/5i 25.94 2 .0000 Cramer's V
.3322
10j/5j 23.33 2 .0000 Cramer's V
.3111
10k/5k 3.39 2 .1835
101/51 13.35 2 .0013 Cramer's V
.2388
10m/5m 8.68 2 .0130 Cramer's V
.1926
10n/5n 7.27 2 .0264 Cramer's V
.1758
100/50 9.61 2 .0082 Cramer's V

.2044

128

TABLE ll-Continued

 

 

 

 

Questions Significant Comparative
Compared x2 at the Statistic &
PWA/ADI. Value df p .05 Levelz. Value
10p/5p 9.42 2 .0090 Cramer's V
.2051
10q/5q 16.07 2 .0003 Cramer's V
.2598
10r/5r 9.68 2 .0079 Cramer's V
.2034
105/55 6.81 2 .0332 Cramer's V
.1717
lOt/St 7.07 2 .0292 Cramer's V
.1742
10u/5u 5.01 2 .0819
10v1/5v1 13.08 2 .0014 Cramer's V
' .2349
10v2/5v2 11.94 2 .0026 Cramer's V
.2244
10v3/5v3 12.21 2 .0022 Cramer's V
.2279
10w/5w 9.20 2 .0100 Cramer's V
.2009
10x/5x 7.64 2 .0220 Cramer's V
.1921
10y/5y 2.85 2 .2408
102/52 14.48 2 .0007 Cramer's V
.2543
lOaa/Saa 10.05 2 .0066 Cramer's V
.2090
10bb/Sbb 8.24 2 .0163 Cramer's V
.1872
lOcc/Scc 9.29 2 .0096 Cramer's V
.1988
10dd/5dd 5.19 2 .0747
10ee/5ee 8.15 2 .0170 Cramer's V
.1863
10ff/5ff 10.19 2 .0061 Cramer's V
.2109
1099/Sgg 5.13 2 .0696
10hh/Shh 9.43 2 .0089 Cramer's V
.2025
ll/6 3.94 1 .0471 phi coefficient
.1366
12/8 2.99 1 .0838

 

1 The first question number is from the primary woman
administrator questionnaire. The second question number
is from the Director of Athletics questionnaire.

2. * = Significant at the .05 level.

129

The data contained in Table 11 reveal that there is a
difference in the perceptions of the primary woman athletic
administrator and the Director of.Ath1etics regarding the
role of the primary woman athletic administrator in thirty-
one of the forty-two areas studied. The most significant
areas of perceptual difference between the primary woman
athletic administrator and the Director of Athletics include
the areas of the hiring of coaching personnel, the firing of
clerical and non-professional staff members, and the
evaluation of coaching personnel. The Cramerfis‘v value in
each of those comparisons is .31 to .33.

On the basis of the significant difference identified
in thirty-one of the forty-two areas studied, the null

hypothesis is rejected for Section I.

Section II - Conference Decision-Making Processes

The data contained in Table 12 describe the comparison
of the perceptions of the primary woman athletic
administrator and the Director of Athletics regarding the
role of the primary woman athletic administrator in the
conference decision-making processes related to the

governance Of women's intercollegiate athletics.

130

TABLE 12

COMPARISON OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF THE PRIMARY WOMAN
ATHLETIC ADMINISTRATOR AND THE DIRECTOR OF
ATHLETICS REGARDING THE ROLE OF THE
PRIMARY WOMAN ATHLETIC ADMINISTRATOR

 

 

 

Questions Significant Comparative

Compared x2 at the Statistic &

PWA/ADI. Value df p .05 Levelz. Value

12/7 .37 l .5431

13/8 .32 l .5701

14/9 5.99 2 .0005 * Cramer's V
.2750

15/10 2.80 5 .7309

 

1. The first question number is from the primary woman
administrator questionnaire. The second question number
is from the Director Of Athletics questionnaire.

2. * = Significant at the .05 level.

The data contained in Table 12 show that there is a
difference in the perceptions of the role of the primary
woman athletic administrator with conference decision-making
processes as seen by the Director of Athletics and the
primary woman athletic administrator in only one of four
areas studied. That area is the nature of the role played
by the primary woman athletic administrator in the
conference governance process.

On the basis of the significant difference identified

in only one of four areas studied, the null hypothesis is

not rejected for Section II.

Section III - National Decision-Making Processes

 

Table 13 contains the data pertinent to the comparison

of the perceptions of the primary woman athletic

131

administrator and the Director of Athletics regarding the
role Of the primary woman athletic administrator in the
institutional decision-making processes related to the

national governance of women's intercollegiate athletics.

TABLE 13

COMPARISON OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF THE PRIMARY WOMAN
ATHLETIC ADMINISTRATOR AND THE DIRECTOR OF
ATHLETICS REGARDING THE ROLE OF THE
PRIMARY WOMAN ATHLETIC ADMINISTRATOR

 

 

 

Questions 2 Significant Comparative

Compared x at the Statistic &

PWA/ADI. Value df p .05 Levelzo Value
8/11 2.83 1 .0924

 

1. The first question number is from the primary woman
administrator questionnaire. The second question number
is from the Director of Athletics questionnaire.

2. * = Significant at the .05 level.

The data presented in Table 13 indicate that there is
no difference in the perceptions of the role of the primary
woman athletic administrator as seen by the Director of
Athletics and the primary woman athletic administrator in

the area studied. The null hypothesis is not rejected for

Section III.

Summary

The null hypothesis is not rejected for two of the

three sections of the comparisons of perceptions.

132

Research Question 5

Research question 5 was as follows:

Determine the level of satisfaction of the primary
woman athletic administrator with her role in the
institutional decision-making processes regarding
the administration and governance at the
institutional, conference, and national levels.

Table 14 contains data relevant to the satisfaction of
the primary woman athletic administrator with her impact on
the decision-making process at each of the three levels
being studied. The table indicates the level being

addressed and the percentage of respondents answering yes

and no.

TABLE 14

SATISFACTION WITH IMPACT ON THE
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS

 

 

 

Level Yes NO
Institutional 73.7 26.3
Conference 63.8 36.2
National 43.9 56.1

 

It is evident that the primary woman athletic
administrator is satisfied with her impact on the
institutional and conference levels but not satisfied with
her impact on the national level. The percentage of
respondents answering no at the institutional and conference
levels are large enough to prevent an unchallengeable

indication of satisfaction at either of those two levels.

133

Of the respondents who answered question I.15., the
majority indicate that their impact is insufficient due to
an unsupportive Director of Athletics. Most individuals
indicate that if given an Opportunity to participate in the
institutional decision-making process:h1areas central to
the administration and governance of women's intercollegiate
athletics, they believe themselves to have the ability to
demonstrate high-level administrative effectiveness.

Respondents to question II.27. indicate that the woman
athletic administrator doesrun:have sufficient impact on
the conference decision-making process because the women
administrators group generally refers its input to the
Directors of Athletics group rather than to Faculty Athletic
Representatives or Chief Executive Officers. The relatively'
short length Of time during which womenis programs have been
a part of conference structures was identified as one of the
possible causes of this disparity in administrative
reporting relationships.

Respondents to question III.20. indicate that the
Primary Woman Administrator does not have sufficient impact
on the national decision-making process because she lacks a
separate vote on matters pertinent to the governance of
women's programs. Several respondents question the
sincerity of the NCAA in providing opportunities for women
administrators.

Table 15 reveals the data relevant to the satisfaction

of the primary woman athletic administrator with the

134

decision-making processiat each of the three levels being
studied. The table also indicates the level being addressed

and the percentage of respondents answering yes and no.

TABLE 15

SATISFACTION WITH STRUCTURE OF
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS

 

 

 

Level Yes No
Institutional 67.2 32.8
Conference 62.8 37.2
National 56.6 43.4

 

Again it is evident that the primary woman athletic
administrator is satisfied with the decision-making
structure at each of the three levels being studied but the
percentage of respondents answering no to the questions at
all three levels is very significant.

Those individuals responding to question 1.17.
indicate that the institutional decision-making process
relative to the administration and governance Of women's
intercollegiate athletics could be improved if women's
programs were administered separately from men's programs.
Many respondents comment on the decreasing numbers Of women
administrators in high-level womenis athletic programs.
This trend could be reversed, according to a number of
respondents, if women were given back the administrative

authority in womenfs athletics they once possessed.

135

Respondents to question 11.29. indicate that the
conference decision-making process relative in: the
governance of women's athletics should include a women
administrators group which functions on the same
administrative level as does the Directors of Athletics
group. The input from the two groups should be referred to
the same group and in the same fashion.

Most respondents to question III.21. advocate the
return of a women's athletics governance organization in
which women administrators could govern women's
intercollegiate athletic programs. Some individuals favor
the creation of a women's division within the NCAA which
would hold meetings apart from the Annual Convention and

enact legislation pertinent to women's programs.

Research Question 6
Research question 6 was as follows:
Determine the level of satisfaction of the
Director of Athletics with the role of the primary
woman athletic administrator in the institutional
decision-making processes regarding the
administration and governance of women's
intercol legiate athletics at the institutional,
conference, and national levels.
Table 16 addresses the satisfaction of the Directors
of Athletics with the impact of the primary woman athletic
administrator on the decision-making processes regarding the

administration and governance Of'womenw;intercollegiate

athletics.

136

TABLE 16

DIRECTOR OF ATHLETICS SATISFACTION WITH IMPACT
OF PRIMARY WOMAN ATHLETIC ADMINISTRATOR

 

 

 

Level Yes No
Institutional 93.3 6.7
Conference 95.9 4.1
National 92.1 7.9

 

It.is evident that.the Director of Athletics is very
satisfied with the impact of the primary woman athletic

administrator at all three levels being studied.

Research Question 7
Research question 7 was as follows:

Compare the satisfaction of the primary woman
athletic administrator with her role in the
institutional decision-making processes regarding
the administration and governance of women's
intercollegiate athleticsan:the institutional,
conference, and national levels with the
satisfaction of the Director of Athletics with the
role of the primary woman athletic administrator
in the same processes.

The hypothesis being tested was:
H03: There is no significant difference between
the satisfaction of the primary woman
athletic administrator with her role and the
satisfaction of the Director of Athletics
with the role of the primary woman athletic
administrator.
Table 17 details the data pertinent to the comparison
of the levels of satisfaction of the Director of Athletics
and the primary woman athletic administrator. Statistical

significance at the .05 level is indicated in both of the

137

comparisons at each of the three levels. The null

hypothesis is rejected for Sections I, II, and III.

TABLE 17

COMPARISON OF SATISFACTION OF THE PRIMARY WOMAN
ATHLETIC ADMINISTRATOR AND THE DIRECTOR OF
ATHLETICS WITH THE ROLE OF THE PRIMARY
WOMAN ATHLETIC ADMINISTRATOR

 

 

Questions Significant Comparative
Compared x2 at the Statistic &
PWA/ADI. Value df p .05 Levelz. Value

 

Section I

14/10 14.33 1 .0002 * phi coefficient
.2543
16/12 33.03 1 .0000 * phi coefficient
.3832
Section II
26/13 31.22 1 .0000 * phi coefficient
.3833
28/15 33.14 1 .0000 * phi coefficient
.3918
Section III
19/17 54.95 1 .0000 * phi coefficient
.5047
21/19 36.06 1 .0000 * phi coefficient
.4114

 

l. The first question number is from the primary woman
administrator questionnaire. The second question number
is from the Director of Athletics questionnaire.

2. * = Significant at the .05 level.

Summary
The null hypothesis is rejected for all of the

sections.

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS,
AND IMPLICATIONS

Summary

This study was an examination of the role of the woman
intercollegiate athletic administrator in the institutional
decision-making processes related to the administration and
governance of women's athletics.

A review of the literature in the area of the history
of the administration and governance of women's
intercollegiate athletics was conducted in preparation for
the study. The review detailed the variety of organizations
which have governed or attempted to govern women's athletics
from 1833 to the present. The philosophical differences
among the groups involved led to frequent changes in the
direction of the women's athletic movement. The attitudes
of the governing groups ranged from totally disapproving Of
competition for female athletes to the vigorous pursuit of
competitive Opportunities at the highest level. The review
described how this range of attitudes strongly impacted the
role of the woman administrator in intercollegiate

athletics.

138

139

Purposes

The purposes of this study were to:

1.

Describe the perceived role of the primary woman
athletic administrator in the institutional
decision-making processes regarding the
administration and governance of women's
intercol legiate athletics at the institutional,
conference, and national levels.

Describe the perceived role of the Director of
Athletics in the institutional decision-making
processes regarding the administration and
governance of womenwsihtercollegiate athletics at
the institutional, conference, and national
levels.

Compare the perceived roles of the primary woman
administrator and the Director of Athletics in the
institutional decision-making processes regarding
the administration and governance Of women's
intercollegiate athletics attfluainstitutional,
conference, and national levels.

Compare the perceptions of the Director of
Athletics regarding the role of the primary woman
athletic administrator in the institutional
decision-making processes regarding the
administration and governance of women's
intercol legiate athletics at the institutional,

conference, and national levels with the

140

perceptions of the primary woman administrator of
her role in the same processes.

5. Determine the level of satisfaction of the primary
woman athletic administrator with her role in the
institutional decision-making processes regarding
the administration and governance Of women's
intercol legiate athletics at the institutional,
conference, and national levels.

6. Determine the level of satisfaction of the
Director of Athletics with the role of the primary
woman administrator in the institutional decision-
making processes regarding the administration and
governance of womenwsintercollegiate athletics at
the institutional, conference, and national
levels.

7. Compare the satisfaction of the primary woman
athletic administrator with her role in the
institutional decision-making processes regarding
the administration and governance Of women's
intercol legiate athletics at the institutional,
conference, and national levels with the
satisfaction of the Director of Athletics with the
role of the pmimary woman athletic administrator

in the same processes.

Design
The study was conducted through the administration of

two survey instruments which were developed to describe

141

roles of the primary woman athletic administrator and the
Director of Athletics in the institutional decision-making
processes related to the administration and governance of
womenfis intercollegiate athletics. The information gathered
by the survey instruments also enabled the researcher to
compare the roles of the two responding groups within the
levels studied.

The analysis of the data included the use of
descriptive techniques where they were appropriate and
comparative techniques in other instances. Three null
hypotheses were developed to determine whether there were
statistical differences of significance in the roles,
perceptions of roles, and levels of satisfaction between the
primary woman athletic administrator and the Director of
Athletics. The statistical significance level of.05 was

used to test the hypotheses.

Hypotheses

The hypotheses tested in this study were stated in the

null form. They were:

Hypothesis 1: There .is rm) significant «difference
between the perceived role of the
primary woman athletic administrator in
the institutional decision-making
processes regarding the administration
and governance of wcmen's

intercollegiate athletics at the

Hypothesis 2:

Hypothesis 3:

142

institutional, conference, and national
levels and the perceived role of the
Director Of Athletics in the same
processes.

There is no significant difference
between the perceptions of the Director
of Athletics regarding the role of the
primary woman athletic administrator
and the perceptions of the primary
woman athletic administrator of her own
role.

There iii no significant difference
between the satisfaction of the primary
woman athletic administrator with her
role and the satisfaction of the
Director of Athletics with the role of
the primary woman athletic

administrator.

Limitations

The limitations which must be considered when

interpreting the results Of the study were:

1. The data used in the study were self-reported.

2. The returned responses upon which the analyses of

data is based may not constitute a representative

sample of the population.

3. It was impossible to determine whether the person

to whom the questionnaire was originally sent

143

actually completed the instrument or requested
that another staff member complete it.
4. The response percentage judged to contain usable

data was 43 percent.

Findings and Conclusions

 

Hypothesis 1 was stated in the null form. It
suggested no significant difference between the perceived
roles of the primary woman athletic administrator and the
Director of Athletics in the institutional decision-making
processes related to the administration and governance of
women's athletics at the institutional, conference, and
national levels and was rejected at each of the three
levels.

At the institutional level, the data indicated
statistically significant differences between the perceived
roles of the two individuals in twenty-nine of the forty-
three areas studied. The most important of those areas in
which differences were found were budget development, the
hiring and firing of coaching personnel, goal setting, the
availability Of support services, the size of the
intercollegiate sports program, and the development of
institutional athletic policy. The null hypothesis was
rejected at the institutional level.

At the conference level, the data indicated a
statistically significant difference between the perceived

roles of the primary woman athletic administrator and the

144

Director of Athletics in the one area studied. The Director
of Athletics was found to have a decision-making role in the
conference governance process relative to women's athletics.
The primary woman athletic administrator was found to have a
consultative role. The null hypothesis was rejected at the
conference level.

.At the national. level, the data indicated
statistically significant differences in twelve Of the
twenty areas studied. The most important of those areas in
which differences were found included the rate of attendance
at NCAA Conventions and the authority to make the final
decision regarding the institutional position on NCAA
proposals which affect women's rules and regulations. The
null hypothesis was rejected at the national level.

The null hypothesis was rejected at each level
studied. There is significant difference between the
perceived roles of the Director of Athletics and the primary
woman athletic administrator at the institutional,
conference, and national levels.

Hypothesis 2 was also stated in the null form. It
suggested no significant difference between the perceptions
of the role of the primary woman athletic administrator by
the Director of Athletics and the primary woman athletic
administrator and was rejected at only one of the three
levels studied.

At the institutional level, the data indicated

statistically’ significant differences between the

145

perceptions of the two respondent groups in thirty-one of
the forty-two areas studied. The most important of those
areas where difference was found included budget
development, the hiring and firing of coaching personnel,
facility use, maintenance, and renovation, goal setting,
fund raising, and the development of institutional athletic
policy. The null hypothesis was rejected at the
institutional level.

At the conference level, the data revealed
statistically significant difference between the perceptions
in only one of the four areas studied. That difference
occurred in the determination of the group to which the
input of the pmimary woman athletic administrator was
referred. The null hypothesis was not rejected at the
conference level.

At the national level, the data showed that
statistically significant difference did not exist in the
one area studied. The perceptions of the primary woman
athletic administrator and the Director of Athletics on
input in the determination of the institutional position on
NCAA proposals were similar. The null hypothesis was not
rejected at the national level.

The null hypothesis was rejected at one of the levels
studied and not rejected at two Of the levels. There is
significant difference between the perceptions Of the

primary woman athletic administrator and the Director of

146

Athletics at the institutional level but no significant
difference at the conference or national levels.

Hypothesis 3 was stated in the null form. It
suggested no significant difference between the satisfaction
with the role of the primary woman athletic administrator
between the Director of Athletics and the primary woman
athletic administrator. Hypothesis 3 was rejected at all
three levels studied.

At the institutional, conference, and national levels,
the data revealed statistically significant difference
between the satisfaction of the primary woman athletic
administrator and the Director of Athletics with the impact
of the primary woman administrator in the decision-making
processes. Statistically significant difference was also
found in the comparison of satisfaction with the current
structure of the decision-making processes at all levels.

The null hypothesis was rejected at each of the three
levels. There is significant difference between the
satisfaction of the primary woman athletic administrator and

the Director of Athletics.

Implications for Further Research
A great amount.of data were generated for this study.
The purposes of the study limited the use of much of what
was collected. Further studies could be developed using the

data which exist in the following areas:

147

Does the perceived role of the primary woman
athletic administrator differ among the three sub-
divisions of NCAA Division?

Does the perceived role of the primary woman
athletic administrator differ among conferences?
Does the perceived role of the primary woman
athletic administrator differ at institutions
which have female Deans or Vice Presidents?

Does the perceived role of the primary woman
athletic administrator differ at institutions

which have a female NCAA Faculty Representative?

The researcher recommends that further study also be

done in the following areas:

1.

Why do a large number Of institutions not have a
woman involved in the administration of the
athletic program?

Why do institutions have male NCAA Primary Woman
Administrators?

What is the role of the primary woman athletic
administrator in the institutional decision-making
processes at the institutional, conference, and
national levels in NCAA Division II and III

institutions?

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

LETTER OF APPROVAL FROM UCRIHS

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

UNHIRQTYCOMHHTHEGNlEflAMDiOWOEHNG murLANnNG-IuaoauI-anw
sum SUBJECTS wcnms»
m ADMINISTRATION sultomc

nrvumuw June 27, 1985

Ms. Christine U. Hoyles

Associate Athletic Director

Western Michigan University

Division of Intercollegiate Athletics
Kalamazoo. Michigan 49008-3899

Dear Ms. Hoyles:

Subject: Proposal Entitled, "An Examination of the Role of the
Woman Athlete AdminiStrator in the Decision-Making
Processes Regarding the Governance of Women’s
Intercollegiate Athletics"

I am pleased to advise that I concur with your evaluation that this
prOject is exempt from full UCRIHS review, and approval is herewith
granted for conduct of the project.

You are reminded that UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year. If
you plan to continue this project beyond one year. please make provisions
for obtaining appropriate UCRIHS approval prior to June 27, 1986.

Any changes in procedures involVing human subjects must be reviewed by the
UCRIHS prior to initiation of the change. UCRIHS must also be notified
promptly of any problems (unexpected side effects. complaints, etc.)
involving human subjects during the course of the work.

Thank you for bringing this project to my attention. If I can be of any
future help, please do not hesitate to let me know.

Sincerely,

1M4?

enry E. Bredeck
Chairman, UCRIHS

HEB/jms
cc: Dr. Eldon Nonnamaker

MSU a - Affirm:- Arno- /Equd Oppon-uy luau-no.

1118

APPENDIX B

THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT FOR THE
PRIMARY WOMEN ADMINISTRATORS

APPENDIX B

THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT FOR THE PRIMARY WOMEN ADMINISTRATORS

THE ROLE OF THE
WOMAN ATHLETIC ADMINISTRATOR
IN THE
DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES
REGARDING THE ADMINISTRATION AND GOVERNANCE
WOMEN'S INTERCOLEEGIATE ATHLETICS

The following questionnaire has been designed to
identify the role of the woman athletic administrator in the
decision-making processes related to the administration and
governance of vmmen's intercollegiate athletics. The
processes in three major areas will be studied. Those areas
are: (1) institutional administrathmn and governance,
(2) conference governance, and (3) national governance.

The questionnaire is divided into sections which relate
to those three major areas. A fourth section which requests
demographic information completes the questionnaire. Please
do add comments wherever you feel it is appropriate. A

comment section has also been included at the end Of each

major section for your use if you so desire.

Your assistance with this project is greatly

appreciated.

149

150

SECTION I -- INSTITUTIONAL DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES

The questions in this section deal with the nature and
degree of your involvement in the decisions made at your
institution regarding the administration and governance of
women's intercol legiate athletics. Please select the one
best answer to each question or provide the brief response
requested.

1. a. Does any athletic administrator have the authority
to overrule your decisions in the area of women's
athletics?

Yes. b. If yes, who does (position only)

 

No

 

2. How often do you meet with the following individuals or
groups at your institution?

Meet With Meet With Don't Meet
Regularly Occasionally With
a. Director of
Athletics

b. Athletic Department
management group
(A.D., Assoc. A.D.,

Asst. A.D., etc.)

c. Faculty Athletic
Representative

d. College/university
administrative
officer to whom
Athletics reports

e. College/university
CEO

 

 

 

3. Do you serve as a member of your institutional Athletic
Board or Council?
Yes No

 

4. If your answer to question 3 is yes, what type of
membership do you hold?
Regular appointment Ex-officio

5. If your answer to question 3 is yes, do you serve as a
voting member?
Yes No

 

10.

 

 

151

If your answer to question 3 isruh.do you regularly
attend the meetings of your institutional Athletic
Board or Council?

Yes NO

If you do not attend the meetings of your institutional
Athletic Board or Council, do you meet regularly with
the chair of the group?
Yes NO

Do you serve on any institutional standing or special
committees?
a. Standing committees Yes No
b. Special committees Yes No
If yes, please list the names of the committees and
describe the nature of your position.

 

 

 

Elected Appointed
Elected Appointed
Elected 'Appointed

c. Number of elected positions:
d. Number of appointed positions:

a. DO you serve as the institutional representative to
any outside organizations?
Yes No
If yes, please list the organizations and the nature
of your position.

 

 

 

Elected Appointed
Elected Appointed
Elected Appointed

 

b. Number Of elected positions:
c. Number of appointed positions:

How'are you involved in the institutional decision-
making process with regard to the administration of
women's athletics in each of the following areas?

Decision maker -- Responsibility for the final
decision rests with you, sub-
ject only to approval by
institutional CEO, his/her
designate, or governing board.

Consultative capacity -- You must be asked for your
input on the subject but the
final decision is made by
someone else.

152

Advisory capacity -- You may be asked for your
input on the subject.

Decision Consultative Advisory
Maker Capacity Capacity

a. Budget development

b. Authorizing
spending

c. Mid-year budget
adjustments

d. Hiring Of coaching
personnel

e. Hiring of support
professionals
(trainers, SIDS,
equipment staff)

f. Hiring Of clerical
and non-professional
staff members
(grounds, mainte-
nance, custodial)

g. Firing of coaching
personnel

h. Firing Of support
professionals

i. Firing of clerical
and non-professional
staff members

j. Evaluation of
coaching personnel

k. Evaluation of sup-
port professionals

1. Evaluation of cler-
ical and non-profes-
sional staff members

m. Salary negotiations
for coaching person-
nel

n. Salary adjustments
for coaching per-
sonnel

0. Salary adjustments
for support pro-
fessionals

p. Salary adjustments
for clerical and
non-professional
staff members

q. Event scheduling

r. Facility use

5. Facility maintenance
(routine)

t. Facility renovation

11.

12.

13.

153

u. New construction

v. Goal setting for:
1. Sports
2. Coaches
3. Department

w. Athletic scholar-
ship allocation

x. Non-athletic
financial aid
allocation

y. Admission of
student-athletes

2. Eligibility deter-
mination of student-
athletes

aa. Event management

bb. Availability of sup-
port services such
as tutoring, promo-
tion, equipment room
services, medical
coverage, and sports
information to
women's sports

cc. Recruitment of
student-athletes

dd. The size of the
intercollegiate
sports program

ee. Promotion of sports

ff. Fund raising

99. Development of
institutional
athletic policy

hh. Academic advisement
of student-athletes

 

 

 

Does your institution have any women's sports which
have been identified to strive for national prominence?
Yes No

If your answer to question 11 is yes, were you involved
in the institutional identification process?
Yes No

 

a. Do you have specific men's or women's sports for
which administrative decisions made by you cannot be
overruled by any other athletic administrator?

Yes. b. If yes: Men's sports Women's

Sports

No

 

 

154

14. Do you think that you have sufficient impact on the
institutional decision-making processes regarding the
governance of women's athletics?

Yes No

 

15. If your answer to question 14 is no, why do you think
that you do not have sufficient impact?

16. Are you satisfied with the current structure of the
institutional decision-making process relative to the
governance of women's athletics?

Yes No

 

17. If your answer to question 16 is no, how would you
change the process?

COMMENTS:

SECTION II -- CONFERENCE DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES

The questions in this section deal with the nature and
degree of your involvement in the decisions made by your
conference regarding the governance of women's
intercollegiate athletics. Please select the one best
answer to each question or provide the brief response
requested.

1. Does your institution hold membership in a conference
which governs women's intercollegiate athletic
programs?

Yes No

2. If your answer to question 1 is yes, what is the name
Of the conference in which your institution holds
membership?

 

3. Is the conference in which your institution holds
membership for women a segregated (women's only) or an
integrated (men's and women's) conference?

Segregated Integrated

10.

11.

 

155

Does your institution hold membership in a conference
which governs men's intercollegiate athletic programs?
Yes NO

If your answer to question 4 is yes, what is the name
of the conference in which your institution holds
membership?

 

Is the conference in which your institution holds
membership for men a segregated (menfs only) or an
integrated (men's and women's) conference?

Segregated Integrated

If your institution holds membership in different
conferences for men's and women's programs, why does
the institution not hold membership in the same
conference for men and women?

No interest in governing women's athletics or
offering women's championships shown by men's
conference

NO interest in holding membership in the same
conference for women shown by institutional
representatives

Affiliation vfiJfli men's conference cost
prohibitive

Affiliation withtmuVs conference inconsistent
with institutional goals for women's athletic
program

Other (please specify)

 

 

 

 

In what year did your women's program become affiliated
with its conference?

 

In what year did the integrated conference in which
your institution holds membership begin to govern
women's athletic programs?

 

If your institution holds membership in the same
integrated conference for men's and women's athletics,
are the conference rules and regulations governing
men's and women's programs the same?

Yes No

 

If your answer to question 10 is no, please describe
the major areas Of difference and the rationale for
those differences.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

156

In the conference in which your institution holds
membership for its women's programs, are the
institutional primary women administrators recognized
as a formal part of the conference governance
structure?

Yes No

 

If your answer to question 12 is yes, does the primary
women administrators group have a role in the decision-
making process relative to the governance Of‘women's
athletics?

Yes No

 

 

If your answer to question 13 is yes, what kind of role
does the primary women administrators group have in the
governance process?

Ultimate decision-makers

Consultative role

Advisory role

 

To what group or individual is the input of the primary
women administrators group referred?

Conference commissioner

Conference officers

Faculty athletic representatives group

Directors of athletics group

Chief executive officers group

Other (please specify)

 

 

 

Does the primary women administrators group meet on a
regular basis?
Yes No

 

 

Are those meetings held in conjunction with other
regularly scheduled conference meetings (iheu. faculty
athletic representatives, directors of athletics)?

Yes No

 

Do you regularly attend conference meetings for primary
women administrators?
Yes No

a. Does the conference commissioner meet with the pri-
mary women administrators group?

Yes. b. If yes, meets: Regularly
Occasionally
NO

A. If your answer to question 19 is no, does any other
conference staff member meet with the primary women
administrators group?

Yes. b. (Please specify the title of the staff
member)
No

 

 

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

157

a. Does the conference in which your institution holds
membership for its women's program have a woman
administrator on its staff?

Yes. b. (Please specify her title)

 

 

No

 

If the conference in which your institution holds
membership for its womenfs programs elects officers or
committee Chairpersons, do women currently hold any of
the major conference Offices or committee chairs?

Yes NO

Are women currently serving on any of the following
types of conference committees?

a. Standing committees Yes No

b. Special committees Yes No

 

Have you ever made contact with a conference
administrator or Officer to affect change in matters
pertinent to the governance of women's athletics?

Yes No

How many championships are sponsored by the conferences
in which your institution holds membership?

Men's Conference Women's Conference
Men's champion-

 

 

ships 25A1 25A2
Women's champion-
ships 25B1 25B2

 

 

Do you think that the primary women administrators

group has sufficient impact on the decision-making

process regarding the governance of women's athletics?
Yes No

If your answer to question 26 is no, why do you think
that the primary women administrators group does not
have sufficient impact?

Are you satisfied with the current structure of the
conference decision-making process relative to the
governance of women's athletics?

Yes NO

If your answer to question 28 is no, how would you
change the process?

COMMENTS:

158

SECTION III -- NATIONAL DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES

The questions in this section deal with the nature and
degree of your involvement in the decisions made by your
institution regarding the NCAA governance of women's
intercollegiate athletics.
answer to each question or provide the brief response
requested.

Please select the one best

1. Are you the designated NCAA Primary Woman Administrator
at your institution?
Yes No

 

2. Did you attend any of the following NCAA Conventions

and,

issued?

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

3. If

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

4. If

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

1985
1984
1983
1982
1981

if you did,

Attended

Convention
(Nashville) Yes No
(Dallas) Yes No
(San Diego) Yes NO
(Houston) Yes NO

(Miami Beach) Yes

NO

delegate
delegate
delegate
delegate
delegate

2

what type of credentials were you

Credentials

alternate
alternate
alternate
alternate
alternate

visitor
visitor
visitor
visitor
visitor

you attended any of the following NCAA Conventions
and were issued delegate or alternate credentials,
you exercise your voting privileges?

1985
1984
1983
1982
1981

(Nashville)
(Dallas)

(San Diego)
(Houston)
(Miami Beach)

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

No
No
No
No
No

did

you attended any of the following NCAA Conventions
and were issued delegate or alternate credentials, did
you exercise your speaking privileges on the Convention
floor?

1985
1984
1983
1982
1981

(Nashville)
(Dallas)

(San Diego)
(Houston)
(Miami Beach)

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

No
No
NO
No
No

a.
b.
C.

159

How often do the following individuals or groups at
your institution participate in the decision-making
process on NCAA proposals affecting women's rules and
regulations?
Always Frequently Sometimes Seldom Never
Student-athletes
Coaches
Other athletic
administrators
(Assoc. A.D.,
Asst. A.D.)
Director Of
Athletics
College/university
faculty
College/university
CEO
Governing board
(regents,
trustees)
Athletic faculty
representative
College/university
Athletic Board or
Council
College/university
administrators
Conference officers
or administrators

What type of input, if any, (h) the following
individuals or groups at your institution have in the
decision-making process on NCAA proposals affecting
women's rules and regulations?

Decision maker-m- Responsibility for the final
decision rests with group or
individual, subject only to
approval by institutional CEO,

his/her designate, or
governing board.
Consultative input -- Group or individual must be

asked for input on the subject
but the final decision is made
by someone else.

Advisory input -- Group or individual may be
asked for input on the
subject.

b.
C.

10.

160

Not Advisory Consultative Decision
Involved Input Input Maker

Student-
athletes
Coaches
Other athletic
administrators
(Assoc. A.D.,
Asst. A.D.)
Director Of
Athletics
College/univer-
sity faculty
College/univer-
sity CEO
Governing board
(regents,
trustees)
Athletic faculty
representative
College/univer-
sity Athletic
Board or
Council
College/univer-
sity admini-
strators
Conference
officers or
administrators

How is the institutional vote on NCAA proposals which
affect womenis rules and regulations determined at your
institution?

In the process of determining the institutional
position on NCAA proposals which affect women's rules
and regulations, do you have input?

Yes No

If your answer to question 8 is yes, how do you have
input?

If there are NCAA proposals which your institution
feels have direct impact on women's rules and
regulations, how is your institutional position on
those prOposals determined?

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

161

a. Are you able to prOpose NCAA legislation?
Yes No

b. If yes, how are you able to propose NCAA legislation?

Independently
Through institutional CEO
Through NCAA faculty representative

 

Does your institutional voting delegation go to the
NCAA Conventions with prepared positions on proposed
legislation?

Yes NO

Does your institutional voting delegation go to the

NCAA Conventions with alternate positions on proposals

in the event that they are amended at the Convention?
Yes No

If your answer to question 13 is no, what guidelines
does your voting representative use to determine your
institutional position?

College/university philosophy

Departmental philosophy

Personal philosophy

Other (please specify)

 

 

 

a. Do you make the final decision on your institutional
position on NCAA proposals which affect women's
rules and regulations?

Yes
No. b. (If no, who does? Position title only)

 

Have you ever contacted your conference NCAA Council
representative or any NCAA Council representative to
affect change on proposals which affect women's rules
and regulations?

Yes NO

 

 

Have you ever contacted a woman on the NCAA Council on
proposals which affect women's rules and regulations?
Yes No

Do you currently serve on or as the chairperson of any
NCAA committees?
a. Sports committees Yes No - Chair Yes

b. Standing committees Yes No - Chair Yes

Do you think the Primary Woman Administrator has
sufficient impact on the NCAA decision-making process
regarding the governance of women's athletics?

Yes No

NO

NO

162

20. If your answer to question 19 is no, why do you think
that the Primary Woman Administrator does not have
sufficient impact?

21. Are you satisfied with the current structure of the
NCAA decision-making process relative to the governance
of women's athletics?

Yes NO

22. If your answer to question 21 is no, how would you
change the process?

COMMENTS:

SECTION IV -- DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

The questions in this section relate in; you, your
administrative position, and your institution. Please
select the one best answer to each question or provide the
brief response requested.

1.

What is your present title?

Director of Athletics

Director of Women's Athletics
Associate Director of Athletics
Assistant Director of Athletics
Coordinator of Women's Athletics
Other (please specify)

 

 

 

To whom do you report?
Position title only

 

In what academic year did you begin working in your
present posision?

 

In addition to your administrative duties in athletics,

do you:

a. Teach Yes No

b. Coach Yes No

c. Perform any other duties Yes No

 

(If yes, please specify what other duties you perform.)

 

10.

11.

12.

13.

163

What is your present age?
Under 30

31-40

41-50

51-60

61+

 

Of which sub-division of NCAA Division I is your
institution a member?

Division I-A

Division I-AA

Division I-AAA

 

How would you describe the organizational structure of
intercollegiate athletics at your institution?
Integrated men's and women's intercollegiate
athletics

Segregated men's and women's intercollegiate
athletics

Other (please specify)

 

 

 

 

Is your institutional NCAA faculty athletic
representative male or female?
Male Female

What is the number of members of your institution's
Athletic Board or Council?

 

What is the number of women who currently hold
membership on your institution's Athletic Board or
Council?

 

What is the number of women who currently hold
positions as Vice Puesidents or Deans at your
institution?

 

Which Of the following sets of rules does your
institution apply to its women's intercollegiate
athletic program?

NCAA

AIAW

Institutional

Other (please specify)

 

 

 

Please use this space to make any comments you feel you
would like to make.

Thank you for your assistance with this study.

APPENDIX C

THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT FOR THE
DIRECTORS OF ATHLETICS

APPENDIX C

THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT FOR THE DIRECTORS OF ATHLETICS

THE ROLE OF THE
WOMAN ATHLETIC ADMINISTRATOR
IN THE
DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES
REGARDING THE ADMINISTRATION AND GOVERNANCE
WOMEN'S INTERCOLEEGIATE ATHLETICS

The following questionnaire has been designed to
identify the roles of the Director of Athletics and the
woman athletic administrator in the decision-making
processes related to the administration and governance of
womenfis intercollegiate athletics. The processes in three
major areas will 1%? studied. Those areas are: (1) institu-
tional administration and governance, (2) conference
governance, and (3) national governance.

The questionnaire is divided into sections which relate
to those three major areas. A fourth section which requests
demographic information completes the questionnaire. Please
do add comments wherever you feel it is appropriate. A

comment section has also been included at the end of each

major section for your use if you so desire.

Your assistance with this project is greatly

appreciated.

164

166

How often does the primary woman administrator meet
with the following individuals or groups at your
institution?

Meet With Meet With Don't Meet
Regularly Occasionally With
a. Director of
Athletics

b. Athletic Department
management group
(A.D., Assoc. A.D.,

Asst. A.D., etc.)

c. Faculty Athletic
Representative

d. College/university
administrative
officer to whom
Athletics reports

e. College/university
CEO

 

 

 

How are you involved in the institutional decision-
making process with regard to the administration of
women's athletics in each of the following areas?

Decision maker--- Responsibility for the final
decision rests with you, sub-
ject only in) approval by
institutional CEO, his/her
designate, or governing board.

Consultative capacity -- You must be asked for your
input on the subject but the
final decision is made by
someone else.

Advisory capacity -- You may be asked for your
input on the subject.

Decision Consultative Advisory
Maker Capacity Capacity

a. Budget development

b. Authorizing
spending

c. Mid-year budget
adjustments

d. Hiring of coaching
personnel

g.
h.

q.
r.
S.

t.
u.
v.

167

Hiring of support
professionals
(trainers, SIDS,
equipment staff)
Hiring Of clerical
and non-professional
staff members
(grounds, mainte-
nance, custodial)
Firing of coaching
personnel

Firing Of support
professionals
Firing of clerical
and non-professional
staff members
Evaluation of
coaching personnel
Evaluation of sup-
port professionals
Evaluation of cler-
ical and non-profes-
sional staff members
Salary negotiations
for coaching person-
nel

Salary adjustments
for coaching per-
sonnel

Salary adjustments
for support pro-
fessionals

Salary adjustments
for clerical and
non-professional
staff members

Event scheduling
Facility use
Facility maintenance
(routine)

Facility renovation
New construction
Goal setting for:

1. Sports

2. Coaches

3. Department
Athletic scholar-
ship allocation
Non-athletic
financial aid
allocation
Admission of
student-athletes

aa.
bb.

CC.

dd.

ee.
ff.

99-

hh.

HOW

Consultative capacity --

168

Eligibility deter-

mination of student-

athletes
Event management

Availability of sup-

port services such
as tutoring, promo-

tion, equipment room

services, medical

coverage, and Sports

information to
women's sports
Recruitment of
student-athletes
The size of the
intercollegiate
sports program
Promotion of sports
Fund raising
Development of
institutional
athletic policy
Academic advisement
Of student-athletes

 

 

 

is the primary woman administrator involved in the
institutional decision-making process with regard to
the administration of women's athletics in each of the
following areas?
Decision maker --

Advisory capacity --

a.
b.

d.

Budget development
Authorizing
spending

Mid-year budget
adjustments

Hiring of coaching
personnel

Responsibility for the final
decision rests with her, sub-
ject only to approval by
institutional CEO, his/her
designate, or governing board.
She must be asked for her
input on the subject but the
final decision is made by
someone else.

She nmy'be asked for her
input on the subject.
Decision Consultative Advisory
Maker Capacity Capacity

q.
r.
s.

t.
11.
V.

169

Hiring of support
professionals
(trainers, SIDS,
equipment staff)
Hiring of clerical
and non-professional
staff members
(grounds, mainte-
nance, custodial)
Firing of coaching
personnel

Firing Of support
professionals

Firing of clerical
and non-professional
staff members
Evaluation of
coaching personnel
Evaluation of sup-
port professionals
Evaluation of cler-
ical and non-profes-
sional staff members
Salary negotiations
for coaching person-
nel

Salary adjustments
for coaching per-
sonnel

Salary adjustments
for support pro-
fessionals

Salary adjustments
for clerical and
non-professional
staff members

Event scheduling
Facility use
Facility maintenance
(routine)

Facility renovation
New construction
Goal setting for:

1. Sports

2. Coaches

3. Department
Athletic scholar-
ship allocation
Non-athletic
financial aid
allocation
Admission of
student-athletes

10.

11.

170

2. Eligibility deter-
mination of student-
athletes

aa. Event management

bb. Availability of sup-
port services such
as tutoring, promo-
tion, equipment room
services, medical
coverage, and sports
information to
women's sports

cc. Recruitment of
student-athletes

dd. The size Of the
intercollegiate
sports program

ee. Promotion of sports

ff. Fund raising

99. Development of
institutional
athletic policy

hh. Academic advisement
of student-athletes

 

 

 

Does your institution have any women's sports which
have been identified to strive for national prominence?
Yes No

 

If your answer to question 6 is yes, were you involved
in the institutional identification process?
Yes No

 

If your answer to question 6 is yes, was the primary
woman administrator involved in the institutional
identification process?
Yes No

 

DO you think that you have sufficient impact on the
institutional decision-making processes regarding the
governance of women's athletics?

Yes No

 

DO you think that the primary woman administrator has
sufficient impact on the institutional decision-making
processes regarding the governance of women's
athletics?

Yes No

 

 

If your answer to question 9 or 10 is no, how would you
change the impact?

171

12. Are you satisfied with the current structure of the
institutional decision-making process relative to the
governance of women's athletics?

Yes No

 

 

13. If your answer to question 12 is no, how would you
change the structure?

COMMENTS:

SECTION II -- CONFERENCE DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES

The questions in this section deal with the nature and
degree of your involvement and the involvement of the
primary woman administrator hithe decisions made by your
conference regarding the governance of women's
intercollegiate athletics. Please select the one best
answer to each question or provide the brief response
requested.

1. If your institution holds membership in different
conferences for men's and women's programs, why does
the institution not hold membership in the same
conference for men and women?

No interest in governing women's athletics or
Offering womenfs championships shown by menis
conference

NO interest in holding membership in the same
conference for women shown by institutional
representatives

Affiliation with men's conference cost
prohibitive

Affiliation with men's conference inconsistent
with institutional goals for women's athletic
program

Other (please specify)

 

 

 

 

 

172

If your institution holds membership in the same
integrated conference for menfls and womenfs athletics,
are the conference rules and regulations governing
men's and women's programs the same?

Yes No

If your answer to question 2 is no, please describe the
major areas of difference and the rationale for those
differences.

In the conference in which your institution holds
membership for its women's programs, are the
institutional Directors of Athletics recognized as a
formal part of the conference governance structure
which regulates women's athletes?

Yes No

If your answer to question 4 is yes, does the Directors
Of Athletics group have a role in the decision-making
process relative to the governance of women's
athletics?

Yes No

 

 

If your answer to question 5 is yes, what kind of role
does the Directors of Athletics group have in the
governance process?

Ultimate decision-makers

Consultative role

Advisory role

 

In the conference in which your institution holds
membership for its women's programs, are the
institutional primary women administrators recognized
as a formal part of the conference governance
structure?

Yes NO

 

 

If your answer to question 7 is yes, does the primary
women administrators group have a role in the decision-
making process relative to the governance of women's
athletics?

Yes No

 

 

If your answer to question 8 is yes, what kind of role
does the primary women administrators group have in the
governance process?

Ultimate decision-makers

Consultative role

Advisory role

 

173

10. To what group or individual is the input of the primary
women administrators group referred?

Conference commissioner

Conference Officers

Faculty athletic representatives group

Directors of athletics group

Chief executive officers group

Other (please specify)

 

 

 

11. Have you ever made contact with a conference
administrator or Officer to affect change in matters
pertinent to the governance of women's athletics?

Yes No

 

12. DO you think that the Directors of Athletics group has
sufficient impact on the decision-making process
regarding the governance of women's athletics?

Yes No

 

13. Do you think that the primary women administrators
group has sufficient impact on the decision-making
process regarding the governance of women's athletics?

Yes NO

14. If your answer to question 12 or 13 is no, how would
you change the impact?

15. Are you satisfied with the current structure of the
conference decision-making process relative to the
governance Of women's athletics?

Yes No

 

 

16. If your answer to question 15 is no, how would you
change the process?

COMMENTS:

174

SECTION III -- NATIONAL DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES

The questions in this section deal with the nature and
degree of your involvement and the involvement of the
primary woman administrator in the decisions made by your
institution regarding the NCAA governance of women's

intercollegiate athletics.

Please select the one best

answer to each question or provide the brief response
requested.

1.

Does your institution have a designated NCAA Primary
Woman Administrator?

Yes NO

 

If your answer to question 1 is yes, what is the sex of
the individual?
Male Female

Did you attend.any'of the following NCAA Conventions

and, if you did, what type of credentials were you
issued? 1 2

Attended

Convention Credentials
1985 (Nashville) Yes No delegate alternate visitor
1984 (Dallas) Yes No delegate alternate visitor
1983 (San Diego) Yes NO delegate alternate visitor
1982 (Houston) Yes No delegate alternate visitor
1981 (Miami Beach) Yes No delegate alternate visitor

If you attended any of the following NCAA Conventions
and were issued delegate or alternate credentials, did
you exercise your voting privileges?

a. 1985 (Nashville) Yes No
b. 1984 (Dallas) Yes NO
c. 1983 (San Diego) Yes No
d. 1982 (Houston) Yes No
e. 1981 (Miami Beach) Yes NO
If you attended any of the following NCAA Conventions

and were issued delegate or alternate credentials, did
you exercise your speaking privileges on the Convention
floor?

a. 1985 (Nashville) Yes NO
b. 1984 (Dallas) Yes No
c. 1983 (San Diego) Yes No
d. 1982 (Houston) Yes NO
e. 1981 (Miami Beach) Yes No

a.
b.
c.

175

How Often do the following individuals or groups at
your institution participate in the decision-making
process on NCAA proposals affecting women's rules and
regulations?
Always Frequently Sometimes Seldom Never
Student-athletes
Coaches
Other athletic
administrators
(Assoc. A.D.,
Asst. A.D.)
Director of
Athletics
College/university
faculty
College/university
CEO
Governing board
(regents,
trustees)
Athletic faculty
representative
College/university
Athletic Board or
Council
College/university
administrators
Conference Officers
or administrators

What type of input, if any, do the following
individuals or groups at your institution have in the
decision-making process on NCAA proposals affecting
women's rules and regulations?

Decision maker -- Responsibility for the final
decision rests with group or
individual, subject only to
approval by institutional CEO,

his/her designate, or
governing board.
Consultative input -- Group or individual must be

asked for input on the subject
but the final decision is made
by someone else.

Advisory input -- Group or individual may be
asked for input on the
subject.

b.
c.

10.

11.

176

Not Advisory Consultative Decision
Involved Input Input Maker

Student-
athletes
Coaches
Other athletic
administrators
(Assoc. A.D.,
Asst. A.D.)
Director Of
Athletics
College/univer-
sity faculty
College/univer-
sity CEO
Governing board
(regents,
trustees)
Athletic faculty
representative
College/univer-
sity Athletic
Board or
Council
College/univer-
sity admini-
strators
Conference
officers or
administrators ___ ____ ____ ___
How is the institutional vote on NCAA proposals which
affect women's rules and regulations determined at your
institution?

In the process of determining the institutional
position on NCAA proposals which affect women's rules
and regulations, do you have input?

Yes No

 

If your answer to question 9 is yes, how do you have
input?

In the process of determining the institutional
position on NCAA proposals which affect women's rules
and regulations, does the primary woman administrator
have input?

Yes No

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

177

If your answer to question 11 is yes, how does that
individual have input?

If there are NCAA proposals which your institution
feels have direct impact on women's rules and
regulations, how is your institutional position on
those proposals determined?

a. Do you make the final decision on your institutional
position on NCAA proposals which affect women's
rules and regulations?

Yes
No. b. If no, who does? (Position title only)

 

Have you ever contacted your conference NCAA Council
representative or any NCAA Council member to affect
change on proposals which affect women's rules and
regulations?

Yes No

 

Do you think the Director of.Athletics has sufficient
impact on the NCAA decision-making process regarding
the governance of women's athletics?

Yes NO

DO you think the Primary Woman Administrator has
sufficient impact on the NCAA decision-making process
regarding the governance Of women's athletics?

Yes NO

If your answer to question 16 or 17 is no, how would
you change the impact?

Are you satisfied with the current structure of the
NCAA decision-making process relative to the governance
of women's athletics?

Yes No

If your answer to question 19 is no, how would you
change the process?

178

COMMENTS:

SECTION IV -- DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

The questions in this section relate to you, your
administrative position, and your institution. Please
select the one best answer to each question or provide the
brief response requested.

1.

What is your present title?
Director Of Athletics
Director of Men's Athletics
Other (please specify)

 

 

 

To whom do you report?
Position title only

 

In what academic year did you begin working in your
present posision?

 

In addition to your administrative duties in athletics,

 

do you:

a. Teach Yes No

b. Coach Yes No

c. Perform any other duties Yes No

(If yes, please specify what other duties you perform.)

 

What is your present age?
Under 30

31-40

41-50

51-60

61+

 

Of which sub-division of NCAA Division I is your
institution a member?

Division I-A

Division I-AA

Division I-AAA

 

179

How would you describe the organizational structure of
intercollegiate athletics at your institution?
Integrated men's and women's intercollegiate
athletics
Segregated men's and women's intercollegiate
athletics
Other (please specify)

 

 

 

 

Please use this space to make any comments you feel you
would like to make.

Thank you for your assistance with this study.

APPENDIX D

THE INITIAL COVER LETTER AND
THE RESULTS REQUEST FORM

APPENDIX D

THE INITIAL COVER LETTER AND THE RESULTS REQUEST FORM

July 29, 1985

Division of Intercollegiate Athletics
Western Michigan University
Kalamazoo, MI 49008

Director of Athletics (Actual Name Inserted)
Athletic Department

College or University Name

City, State, Zip Code

Dear Director of Athletics (Actual Name Inserted):

I am in the process of completing my doctoral dissertation
at Michigan State University. My research topic is an
examination of the role of the woman athletic administrator
in the decision-making processes regarding the administra-
tion and governance of womenfls intercollegiate athletics.
My doctoral committee chairman is Dr. Eldon Nonnamaker.
Committee members include Drs. Richard Featherstone,
Lawrence Foster, and Gwendolyn Norrell.

Enclosed is a questionnaire which asks you to describe the
role of your institutional primary woman athletic
administrator in the decision-making process related to the
institutional, conference, and national governance of
women's athletics. I would appreciate your completion of
the questionnaire and participation in the study. Each
questionnaire is coded for return identification purposes
only. Upon its return, the code wil 1 be removed to insure
the confidentiality of the responses. Your completion of
the questionnaire indicates that you consent to become a
participant in the study and gives me permission to use the
data collected anonymously in my study.

Detailed instructions and definitions of the terms used are
contained in the body of the questionnaire. In addition,
your comments are welcome anywhere on the instrument itself.
Please return the completed questionnaire in the self-
addressed envelope no later than August 16, 1985.

180

181

Director of Athletics
Page 2
July 29, 1985

Please feel free to contact me at 616-383-1930 for further
information. Thank you for your assistance in making this a
successful study.

Sincerely,

Christine W. Hoyles
Associate Director of Athletics

182
July 29, 1985

Division of Intercollegiate Athletics
Western Michigan University
Kalamazoo, MI 49008

Primary Woman Administrator (Actual Name Inserted)
Athletic Department

College or University Name

City, State, Zip Code

Dear Primary Woman Administrator (Actual Name Inserted):

I am in the process Of completing my doctoral dissertation
at Michigan State University. My research topic is an
examination of the role of the woman athletic administrator
in the decision-making processes regarding the administra-
tion and governance of women's intercollegiate athletics.
My doctoral committee chairman is Dr. Eldon Nonnamaker.
Committee members include Drs. Richard Featherstone,
Lawrence Foster, and Gwendolyn Norrell.

Enclosed is a questionnaire which asks you to describe your
role in the decision-making process related to the
institutional, conference, and national governance of
women's athletics. I would appreciate your completion of
the questionnaire and participation in the study. Each
questionnaire is coded for return identification purposes
only. Upon its return, the code wil 1 be removed to insure
the confidentiality of the responses. Your completion of
the questionnaire indicates that you consent to become a
participant in the study and gives me permission to use the
data collected anonymously in my study.

Detailed instructions and definitions of the terms used are
contained in the body Of the questionnaire. In addition,
your comments are welcome anywhere on the instrument itself.
Please return the completed questionnaire in the self-
addressed envelope no later than August 16, 1985.

Please feel free to contact me at 616-383-1930 for further
information. Thank you for your assistance in making this a
successful study.

Sincerely,

Christine W. Hoyles
Associate Director of Athletics

183

I am interested in receiving a summary Of the results
of The Role of the Woman Athletic Administrator in the
Decision-Making Processes Regarding the Administration and
Governance of Womenis Intercollegiate Athletics.

Name:

 

Address:

 

 

APPENDIX E

SECOND COVER LETTER

APPENDIX E

SECOND COVER LETTER

Division of Intercollegiate Athletics
Western Michigan University
Kalamazoo, MI 49008

August 19, 1985

Dear Colleague:

Approximately two weeks ago you received a questionnaire
titled The Role Of the Woman Athletic Administrator in the
Decision-Making Processes Regarding the Administration and
Governance of Womenfs Intercollegiate Athletics. Thank you

for your prompt response if you have already returned the
questionnaire.

If you have not returned the questionnaire, I would
certainly appreciate you taking just a few minutes to do so.
Enclosed is another copy for your convenience. Your
participation in the study would be greatly appreciated.
Every member of the sample can provide data that will
strengthen the study.

Please return your completed questionnaire to me by
August 30, 1985. Thank you for your assistance in making
this a successful study.

Sincerely,

Christine W. Hoyles
Associate Director of Athletics

mbs

enclosure

184

APPENDIX F

QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE RATES

APPENDIX F

QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE RATES

TABLE 18

NUMBER OF QUESTIONNAIRES RETURNED EACH DAY

 

 

 

 

Date Number
August 1 11
2 31
5 52
6 07
7 13
8 17
9 15
12 26
13 04
14 07
15 05
16 08
19 12
20 04
21 00
22 03
23 04
26 36
27 00
28 02
29 13
30 03
September 3 06
4 12
Total 291

 

185

APPENDIX G

FREQUENCY COUNTS AND PERCENTAGES FOR RESPONSES
TO PRIMARY WOMAN ADMINISTRATOR QUESTIONNAIRE

APPENDIX G

FREQUENCY COUNTS AND PERCENTAGES FOR RESPONSES TO

PRIMARY WOMAN ADMINISTRATOR QUESTIONNAIRE

TABLE 19

RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.1.a.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 120 87.6
No 17 12.4
Total 137 100.0

TABLE 20
RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.1.b.

Response Frequency Percent
Director of Athletics 104 88.2
Director of Men's Athletics 1 .8
Executive Director of Athletics 1 .8
Deputy Director 1 .8
Dean, College of Physical Education 1 .8
Vice President 3 2.6
More than one person 6 5.2
Other 1 .8
Total 118 100.0

 

186

187

TABLE 21

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 1.2.3.

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Meet with regularly 106 81.5
Meet with occasionally 20 15.4
Don't meet with 4 3.1
Total 130 100.0
TABLE 22

RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.2.b.

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Meet with regularly 95 73.6
Meet with occasionally 22 17.1
Don't meet with 12 9.3
Total 129 100.0
TABLE 23

RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.2.C.

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Meet with regularly 30 22.2
Meet with occasionally 85 63.0
Don't meet with 20 14.8

 

Total 135 100.0

 

188

TABLE 24

RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.2.d.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Meet with regularly 31 22.8
Meet with occasionally 76 55.9
Don't meet with 29 21.3
Total 136 100.0
TABLE 25
RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.2.e.
Response Frequency Percent
Meet with regularly 14 10.4
Meet with occasionally 71 53.0
Don't meet with 49 36.6
Total 134 100.0
TABLE 26
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 1.3.
Response Frequency Percent
Yes 80 59.7
No 54 40.3
Total 134 100.0

 

189

TABLE 27

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 1.4.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Regular appointment 19 24.4
Ex-officio appointment 59 75.6
Total 78 100.0
TABLE 28
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 1.5.
Response Frequency Percent
Yes 20 26.0
No 57 74.0
Total 77 100.0
TABLE 29
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 1.6.
Response Frequency Percent
Yes 13 27.7
No 34 72.3
Total 47 100.0

 

190

TABLE 30

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 1.7.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 9 22.0
No 32 78.0
Total 41 100.0

TABLE 31
RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.8.a.

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 64 52.5
No 58 47.5
Total 122 100.0

TABLE 32
RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.8.b.

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 61 56.5
No 47 43.5
Total 108 100.0

 

191

TABLE 33

RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.8.C.

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
0 Elected positions 75 84.3
1 Elected positions 13 14.6
2 Elected positions 1 1.1
Total 89 100.0
TABLE 34

RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.8.d.

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
0 Appointed positions 4 4.4
1 Appointed positions 41 45.6
2 Appointed positions 28 31.1
3 Appointed positions 15 16.7
4 Appointed positions 2 2.2
Total 90 100.0
TABLE 35

RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.9.a.

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 81 59.6
No 55 40.4

 

Total 136 100.0

 

192

TABLE 36

RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.9.b.

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
0 Elected positions 64 84.2
1 Elected positions 11 14.5
2 Elected positions 1 1.3
Total 76 100.0
TABLE 37

RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.9.C.

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
0 Appointed positions 4 3.0
1 Appointed positions 52 39.4
2 Appointed positions 14 10.6
3 Appointed positions 8 6.1
Not applicable 54 40.9
Total 132 100.0
TABLE 38

RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.10.a.

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 32 23.5
Consultative capacity 60 44.1
Decision maker 44 32.4

 

Total 136 100.0

 

193

TABLE 39

RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.10.b.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 24 18.3
Consultative capacity 35 26.7
Decision maker 72 55.0

131 100.0
TABLE 40
RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.10.C.

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 39 30.0
Consultative capacity 46 35.4
Decision maker 45 34.6
Total 130 100.0

TABLE 41
RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.10.d.

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 10 7.3
Consultative capacity 47 34.3
Decision maker 80 58.4
Total 137 100.0

 

194

TABLE 42

RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.10.e.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 28 20.9
Consultative capacity 67 50.0
Decision maker 39 29.1
Total 134 100.0

TABLE 43
RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.10.f.

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 45 34.4
Consultative capacity 35 26.7
Decision maker 51 38.9
Total 131 100.0

TABLE 44
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 1.10.9.

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 22 16.3
Consultative capacity 51 37.8
Decision maker 62 45.9
Total 135 100.0

 

195

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 45
RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.10.h.

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 40 29.9
Consultative capacity 52 38.8
Decision maker 42 31.3
Total 134 100.0

TABLE 46
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 1.10.1.

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 48 36.6
Consultative capacity 33 25.2
Decision maker 50 38.2
Total 131 100.0

TABLE 47
RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.10.j.

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 17 12.4
Consultative capacity 34 24.8
Decision maker 86 62.8
Total 137 100.0

 

196

TABLE 48

RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.10.k.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 27 19.9
Consultative capacity 53 39.0
Decision maker 56 41.2
Total 136 100.0

TABLE 49
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 1.10.1.

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 36 27.5
Consultative capacity 31 23.7
Decision maker 64 48.8
Total 131 100.0

TABLE 50
RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.10.m.

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 37 28.2
Consultative capacity 58 44.3
Decision maker 36 27.5
Total 131 100.0

 

197

TABLE 51

RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.10.n.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 39 29.6
Consultative capacity 58 43.9
Decision maker 35 26.5
Total 132 100.0

TABLE 52
RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.10.C.

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 53 41.4
Consultative capacity 49 38.3
Decision maker 26 20.3
Total 128 100.0

TABLE 53
RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.10.p.

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 54 43.9
Consultative capacity 42 34.1
Decision maker 27 22.0
Total 123 100.0

 

198

TABLE 54

RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.10.q.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 17 12.6
Consultative capacity 39 28.9
Decision maker 79 58.5
Total 135 100.0

TABLE 55
RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.10.r.

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 25 19.1
Consultative capacity 56 42.7
Decision maker 50 38.2
Total 131 100.0

TABLE 56
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 1.10.5.

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 58 45.3
Consultative capacity 41 32.0
Decision maker 29 22.7
Total 128 100.0

 

199

TABLE 57

RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.10.t.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 54 41.5
Consultative capacity 55 42.3
Decision maker 21 16.2
Total 130 100.0

TABLE 58
RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.10.u.

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 59 45.0
Consultative capacity 55 42.0
Decision maker 17 13.0
Total 131 100.0

TABLE 59
RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.10.v1.

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 21 15.8
Consultative capacity 45 33.8
Decision maker 67 50.4
Total 133 100.0

 

200

TABLE 60

RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.10.V2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 22 16.5
Consultative capacity 44 33.1
Decision maker 67 50.4
Total 133 100.0

TABLE 61
RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.10.v3

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 28 21.2
Consultative capacity 53 40.2
Decision maker 51 38.6
Total 132 100.0

TABLE 62
RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.10.w.

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 20 15.5
Consultative capacity 50 38.8
Decision maker 59 45.7
Total 129 100.0

 

201

TABLE 63

RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.10.x.

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 66 58.9
Consultative capacity 27 24.1
Decision maker 19 17.0
Total 112 100.0

TABLE 64

RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.10.y.

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 65 56.5
Consultative capacity 35 30.5
Decision maker 15 13.0
Total 115 100.0

TABLE 65

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 1.10.2.

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 38 30.2
Consultative capacity 41 32.5
Decision maker 47 37.3

 

Total 126 100.0

 

202

TABLE 66

RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.10.aa.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 30 23.1
Consultative capacity 43 33.1
Decision maker 57 43.8
Total 130 100.0

TABLE 67
RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.10.bb.

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 27 20.1
Consultative capacity 58 43.3
Decision maker 49 36.6
Total 134 100.0

TABLE 68
RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.10.CC.

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 41 30.4
Consultative capacity 39 28.9
Decision maker 55 40.7
Total 135 100.0

 

203

TABLE 69

RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.10.dd.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 37 27.6
Consultative capacity 66 49.3
Decision maker 31 23.1
Total 134 100.0

TABLE 70
RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.10.ee.

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 45 33.8
Consultative capacity 50 37.6
Decision maker 38 28.6
Total 133 100.0

TABLE 71
RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.10.ff.

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 49 38.0
Consultative capacity 49 38.0
Decision maker 31 24.0
Total 129 100.0

 

204

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 72
RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.10.gg.

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 32 23.9
Consultative capacity 76 56.7
Decision maker 26 19.4
Total 134 100.0

TABLE 73
RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.10.hh.

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 51 38.9
Consultative capacity 42 32.1
Decision maker 38 29.0
Total 131 100.0

TABLE 74
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 1.11.

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 92 66.7
No 46 33.3
Total 138 100.0

 

205

TABLE 75

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 1.12.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 73 83.9
No 14 16.1
Total 87 100.0
TABLE 76
RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.13.a.
Response Frequency Percent
Yes 35 25.4
No 103 74.6
Total 138 100.0
TABLE 77
RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.13.b.
Response Frequency Percent
Men's sports 2 6.0
Women's sports 22 66.7
Both 9 27.3
Total 33 100.0

 

206

TABLE 78

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 1.14.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 101 73.7
NC 36 26.3
Total 137 100.0

TABLE 79
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 1.16.

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 92 67.2
No 45 32.8
Total 137 100.0

TABLE 80
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 11.1.

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 129 93.5
NO 9 6.5
Total 138 100.0

 

207

TABLE 81

RESPONSES TO QUESTION II.2

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Atlantic Coast Conference 5
Big East Conference 4
Big Eight Conference 3
Big Ten Conference 5

Colonial Athletic Association
Continental Divide Conference
Eastern College Athletic Conference
Gateway Collegiate Athletic Conference
Gulf Star Conference

High Country Athletic Conference
Ivy League Athletic Conference
Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference
Mid-American Conference

Metro Conference

Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference
Mountain West Athletic Conference
Northern Pacific Athletic Conference
North Star Conference

Ohio Valley Conference

PAC-West Conference

Pacific Coast Athletic Association
Seaboard Conference

Southeastern Conference

Southern Conference

Southland Conference

Sun Belt Conference

Southwest Athletic Conference

West Coast Athletic Association
Atlantic 10 Conference

New South Conference

tuuiountuaiwwuoounbcsonntnuhbcaUinwmraoxonera\Jn«n~1

00000000000000oooooooooooooooo
batonbmmthNNmNObNmowmmmmmmoswcnm

NMWWNHHNN-fiUW-fiMbNWQ-fitflb chub

 

Total

126

100.0

 

208

TABLE 82

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 11.3.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Segregated 39 30.2
Integrated 90 69.8
Total 129 100.0

TABLE 83
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 11.4.

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 120 90.2
No 13 9.8
Total 133 100.0

TABLE 84
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 11.5.

Response Frequency Percent
Atlantic Coast Conference 7 6.0
Big East Conference 6 5.1
Big Eight Conference 4 3.4
Big Sky Athletic Conference 4 3.4
Big Ten Conference 6 5.1
Colonial Athletic Association 1 .9
Eastern College Athletic Conference 7 6.0
Gulf Star Conference 1 .9
Ivy League Athletic Conference 3 2.6
Metro ATlantic Athletic Conference 4 3.4
Mid-American Conference 10 8.5
Metro Conference 4 3.4
Mid-Continent Conference 4 3.4
Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference 3 2.6

209

TABLE 84-Continued

 

 

 

Response

Frequency

Percent

 

Missouri Valley Conference

North Atlantic Conference

Ohio Valley Conference

Pacific-10 Conference

Pacific Coast Athletic Association
Southeastern Conference

Southern Conference

Southland Conference

Sun Belt Conference

Southwest Athletic Conference
Western Athletic Conference

West Coast Athletic Association
Atlantic 10 Conference

Midwestern Collegiate Conference
Trans America Athletic Conference

UlwalO‘ubUNNNubmwi-‘Ih

ubHNubU'leI-‘HHWO‘H U
wqmwphmqqqubmth

 

Total

117

100.0

 

TABLE 85

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 11.6.

 

 

Response

Frequency

Percent

 

Segregated
Integrated

34
85

28.6
71.4

 

Total

119

100.0

 

210

TABLE 86

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 11.7.

 

 

Response Frequency Percent

 

No interest in governing women's
athletics or offering women's
championships shown by men's
conference 11 31.4

NO interest in holding membership
in the same conference for
women shown by institutional
representatives 0 0

Affiliation with men's conference
cost prohibitive 3 8.6

Affiliation with men's conference
inconsistent with institutional
goals for women's athletic

 

 

program 4 11.4
Other 17 48.6
Total 35 100.0

TABLE 87

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 11.8.

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
1954 1 .8
1964 1 .8
1970 1 .8
1972 1 .8
1974 1 .8
1975 l .8
1976 2 1.6
1977 4 3.2
1979 3 2.4
1980 15 12.0

211

TABLE 87-Continued

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
1981 19 15.2
1982 35 28.0
1983 17 13.6
1984 13 10.4
1985 11 8.8
Total 125 100.0

TABLE 88

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 11.9.

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
1954 1 1.1
1970 1 1.1
1972 l 1.1
1975 1 1.1
1976 2 2.3
1977 2 2.3
1978 2 2.3
1979 2 2.3
1980 12 13.6
1981 17 19.3
1982 25 28.4
1983 13 14.8
1984 3 3.4
1985 6 6.8

 

Total 88 100.0

 

212

TABLE 89

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 11.10.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 75 87.2
No 11 12.8
Total 86 100.0

TABLE 90
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 11.12.

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 101 78.9
No 27 21.1
Total 128 100.0

TABLE 91
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 11.13.

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 101 99.0
No 1 1.0
Total 102 100.0

 

213

TABLE 92

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 11.14.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Ultimate decision-makers 29 29.0
Consultative role 58 58.0
Advisory role 13 13.0
Total 100 100.0

TABLE 93
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 11.15.

Response Frequency Percent
Conference Commissioner 13 11.5
Conference Officers 6 5.3
Faculty athletic representatives group 7 6.2
Directors of athletics group 38 33.6
Chief executive Officers group 14 12.4
Other 35 31.0
Total 113 100.0

TABLE 94
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 11.16.

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 104 81.9
No 23 18.1
Total 127 100.0

 

214

TABLE 95

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 11.17.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 79 78.2
NO 22 21.8
Total 101 100.0

TABLE 96
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 11.18.

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 99 78.6
No 27 21.4
Total 126 100.0

TABLE 97
RESPONSES TO QUESTION II.19.a.

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 100 80.6
NO 24 19.4
Total 124 100.0

 

215

TABLE 98

RESPONSES TO QUESTION II.19.b.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Regularly 48 61.5
Occasionally 30 38.5
Total 78 100.0

TABLE 99
RESPONSES TO QUESTION II.20.a.

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 4 17.4
No 19 82.6
Total 23 100.0

TABLE 100
RESPONSES TO QUESTION II.20.b.

Response Frequency Percent
Assistant Commissioner 1 33.3
Coordinator of Women's Sports 2 66.7
Total 3 100.0

 

216

TABLE 101

RESPONSES TO QUESTION II.21.a.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 72 55.8
NO 57 44.2
Total 129 100.0

TABLE 102
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 11.21.b.

Response Frequency Percent
Commissioner 11 19.6
Assistant Commissioner, 14 25.0
Assistant tO the Commissioner 5 8.9
Executive Director 7 12.5
Director of Championships 6 10.7
Coordinator of Women's Sports 3 5.4
Women's Coordinator 1 1.8
Other 9 16.1
Total 56 100.0

TABLE 103
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 11.22.

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 76 62.8
No 45 37.2
Total 121 100.0

 

217

TABLE 104

RESPONSES TO QUESTION II.23.a.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 88 77.2
NO 26 22.8
Total 114 100.0

TABLE 105
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 11.23.b.

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 101 84.9
NO 18 15.1
Total 119 100.0

TABLE 106
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 11.24.

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 112 87.5
No 16 12.5
Total 128 100.0

 

218

TABLE 107

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 11.25.A.1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
1 sport 1 .9
2 sports 2 1.8
4 sports 3 2.7
5 sports 3 2.7
6 sports 15 13.3
7 sports 13 11.5
8 sports 19 16.8
9 sports 20 17.7
10 sports 11 9.7
11 sports 13 11.5
12 sports 7 6.2
14 sports 1 .9
15 sports 3 2.7
16 sports 2 1.8
Total 113 100.0
TABLE 108
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 11.25.A.2.
Response Frequency Percent
0 sports 8 47.1
5 sports 1 5.9
6 sports 2 11.8
8 sports 1 5.9
9 sports 5 29.4
Total 17 100.0

 

219

TABLE 109

RESPONSES TO QUESTION II.25.B.1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
0 sports 8 20.0
1 sport 3 7.5
3 sports 1 2.5
4 sports 1 2.5
5 sports 7 17.5
6 sports 2 5.0
7 sports 2 5.0
8 sports 5 12.5
9 sports 5 12.5
11 sports 1 2.5
14 sports 2 5.0
15 sports 2 5.0
23 sports 1 2.5
Total 40 100.0
TABLE 110
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 11.25.B.2.
Response Frequency Percent
0 sports 1 1.1
2 sports 3 3.4
4 sports 8 9.2
5 sports 7 8.0
6 sports 20 23.0
7 sports 7 8.0
8 sports 12 13.8
9 sports 17 19.5
10 sports 8 9.2
11 sports 2 2.3
12 sports 1 1.1
14 sports 1 1.1
Total 87 100.0

 

220

TABLE 111

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 11.26.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 81 63.8
No 46 36.2
Total 127 100.0

TABLE 112
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 11.28.

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 81 62.8
No 48 37.2
Total 129 100.0

TABLE 113
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 111.1.

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 127 94.8
NO 7 5.2
Total 134 100.0

 

221

TABLE 114

RESPONSES TO QUESTION III.2.a.1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 98 78.4
No 27 21.6
Total 125 100.0

TABLE 115
RESPONSES TO QUESTION III.2.a.2.

Response Frequency Percent
Delegate 61 63.5
Alternate 23 24.0
Visitor 12 12.5
Total 96 100.0

TABLE 116
RESPONSES TO QUESTION III.2.b.l.

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 97 78.2
No 27 21.8
Total 124 100.0

 

222

TABLE 117

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 111.2.b.2.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Delegate 60 63.2
Alternate 23 24.2
Visitor 12 12.6
Total 95 100.0

TABLE 118
RESPONSES TO QUESTION III.2.c.1.

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 80 69.6
NO 35 30.4
Total 115 100.0

TABLE 119
RESPONSES TO QUESTION III.2.c.2.

Response Frequency Percent
Delegate 51 64.6
Alternate 24 30.4
Visitor 4 5.0
Total 79 100.0

 

223

TABLE 120

RESPONSES TO QUESTION III.2.d.1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 60 55.6
No 48 44.4
Total 108 100.0

TABLE 121
RESPONSES TO QUESTION III.2.d.2.

Response Frequency Percent
Delegate 38 64.4
Alternate 19 32.2
Visitor 2 3.4
Total 59 100.0

TABLE 122
RESPONSES TO QUESTION III.2.e.1.

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 41 41.8
No 57 58.2
Total 98 100.0

 

224

TABLE 123

RESPONSES TO QUESTION III.2.a.2.

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Delegate 23 57.5
Alternate 14 35.0
Visitor 3 7.5
Total 40 100.0

TABLE 124

RESPONSES TO QUESTION III.3.a.

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 69 81.2
No 16 18.8
Total 85 100.0

TABLE 125

RESPONSES TO QUESTION III.3.b.

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 65 76.5
NO 20 23.5

 

Total 85 100.0

 

225

TABLE 126

RESPONSES TO QUESTION III.3.e.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 50 68.5
NO 23 31.5
Total 73 100.0

TABLE 127
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 111.3.d.

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 39 69.6
No 17 30.4
Total 56 100.0

TABLE 128
RESPONSES TO QUESTION III.3.e.

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 26 70.3
No 11 29.7
Total 37 100.0

 

226

TABLE 129

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 111.4.3.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 18 20.7
NO 69 79.3
Total 87 100.0

TABLE 130
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 111.4.b.

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 24 27.3
NO 64 72.7
Total 88 100.0

TABLE 131
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 111.4.c.

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 17 22.4
No 59 77.6
Total 76 100.0

 

227

TABLE 132

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 111.4.d.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 9 16.4
No 46 83.6
Total 55 100.0

TABLE 133
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 111.4.e.

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 15 38.5
No 24 61.5
Total 39 100.0

TABLE 134
RESPONSES TO QUESTION III.5.a.

Response Frequency Percent
Always 4 3.1
Frequently 9 6.9
Sometimes 15 11.5
Seldom 55 42.3
Never 47 36.2
Total 130 100.0

 

228

TABLE 135

RESPONSES TO QUESTION III.5.b.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Always 26 19.8
Frequently 38 29.0
Sometimes 43 32.8
Seldom 19 14.5
Never 5 3.8
Total 131 100.0

TABLE 136
RESPONSES TO QUESTION III.5.c.

Response Frequency Percent
Always 48 37.2
Frequently 38 29.5
Sometimes 29 22.5
Seldom 7 5.4
Never 7 5.4
Total 129 100.0

TABLE 137
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 111.5.d.

Response Frequency Percent
Always 103 79.2
Frequently 16 12.3
Sometimes 8 6.2
Seldom 1 .8
Never 2 1.5
Total 130 100.0

 

229

TABLE 138

RESPONSES TO QUESTION III.5.e.

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Always 10 8.2
Frequently 13 10.7
Sometimes 23 18.9
Seldom 29 23.8
Never 47 38.5
Total 122 100.0

TABLE 139

RESPONSES TO QUESTION III.5.f.

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Always 65 50.4
Frequently 21 16.3
Sometimes 26 20.2
Seldom 12 9.3
Never 5 3.9
Total 129 100.0

TABLE 140

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 111.5.9.

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Always 4 3.2
Frequently 15 12.1
Sometimes 25 20.2
Seldom 41 33.1
Never 39 31.5

 

Total 124 100.0

 

230

TABLE 141

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 111.5.h.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Always 66 51.6
Frequently 33 25.8
Sometimes 12 9.4
Seldom 10 7.8
Never 7 5.5
Total 128 100.0

TABLE 142
RESPONSES TO QUESTION III.5.i.

Response Frequency Percent
Always 18 14.5
Frequently 31 25.0
Sometimes 33 26.6
Seldom 20 16.1
Never 22 17.7
Total 124 100.0

TABLE 143
RESPONSES TO QUESTION III.5.j.

Response Frequency Percent
Always 14 11.0
Frequently 14 11.0
Sometimes 35 27.6
Seldom 30 23.6
Never 34 26.8
Total 127 100.0

 

231

TABLE 144

RESPONSES TO QUESTION III.5.k.

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Always 48 38.4
Frequently 36 28.8
Sometimes 19 15.2
Seldom 9 7.2
Never 13 10.4
Total 125 100.0

TABLE 145

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 111.6.a-k.

 

 

Due to a typographical error<n1the survey instrument, no
data were recorded for these questions.

TABLE 146

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 111.8.

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 122 93.8
No 8 6.2

 

Total 130 100.0

 

232

TABLE 147

RESPONSES TO QUESTION III.11.a.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 112 89.6
No 13 10.4

Total 125 100.0
TABLE 148
RESPONSES TO QUESTION III.11.b.

Response Frequency Percent
Independently 11 12.2
Through CEO 48 53.3
Through NCAA faculty representative 31 34.4
Total 90 100.0

TABLE 149
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 111.12.

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 121 93.8
NO 8 6.2
Total 129 100.0

 

233

TABLE 150

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 111.13.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 103 81.1
No 24 18.9
Total 127 100.0

TABLE 151
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 111.14.

Response Frequency Percent
College/university philosophy 14 58.3
Departmental philoSOphy 3 12.5
Personal philosophy 0 0.0
Other 7 29.2
Total 24 100.0

TABLE 152
RESPONSES TO QUESTION III.15.a.

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 29 22.3
NO 101 77.7
Total 130 100.0

 

234

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 153
RESPONSES TO QUESTION III.15.b.
Response Frequency Percent
CEO 37 38.1
Vice President 2 2.1
Director of Athletics 33 34.0
Faculty Representative 7 7.2
More than one person 12 12.4
Jointly by PWA and others 6 6.2
Total 97 100.0
TABLE 154
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 111.16.
Response Frequency Percent
Yes 66 50.0
No 66 50.0
Total 132 100.0
TABLE 155
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 111.17.
Response Frequency Percent
Yes 78 59.1
No 54 40.9
Total 132 100.0

 

235

TABLE 156

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 111.18.a.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
No 107 84.9
Serve as chair 4 3.2
Serve on committee 15 11.9
Total 126 100.0
TABLE 157
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 111.18.b.
Response Frequency Percent
No 101 84.9
Serve as chair 1 .8
Serve on committee 17 14.3
Total 119 100.0
TABLE 158
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 111.19.
Response Frequency Percent
Yes 54 43.9
No 69 56.1
Total 123 100.0

 

236

TABLE 159

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 111.21.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 69 56.6
NO 53 43.4
Total 122 100.0

TABLE 160
RESPONSES TO QUESTION IV.1.

Response Frequency Percent
Director of Athletics 4 3.0
Director of Women's Athletics 27 20.0
Associate Director Of Athletics 49 36.3
Assistant Director of Athletics 33 24.4
Coordinator of Women's Athletics 14 10.4
Other 8 5.9
Total 135 100.0

TABLE 161
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 1V.2.

Response Frequency Percent
Vice President 12 9.0
Assistant to the President 1 .7
Dean, College of Physical Education 2 1.5
Assistant Director of Athletics 1 .7
Associate Director of Athletics 3 2.2
Director of Athletics 108 80.6
Executive Athletic Director 1 .7
Other 6 4.5
Total 134 100.0

 

237

TABLE 162

RESPONSES TO QUESTION IV.3.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
1954 1 .8
1963 1 .8
1965 1 .8
1968 2 1.5
1969 1 .8
1970 3 2.3
1972 4 3.0
1973 4 3.0
1974 10 7.6
1975 11 8.3
1976 11 8.3
1977 8 6.1
1978 - 11 8.3
1979 10 7.6
1980 11 8.3
1981 9 6.8
1982 13 9.8
1983 8 6.1
1984 9 6.8
1985 4 3.0
Total 132 100.0

TABLE 163
RESPONSES TO QUESTION IV.4.a.

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 32 26.4
No 89 73.6
Total 121 100.0

 

238

TABLE 164

RESPONSES TO QUESTION IV.4.b.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 28 22.8
NO 95 77.2
Total 123 100.0

TABLE 165
RESPONSES TO QUESTION IV.4.c.

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 27 23.9
NO 86 76.1
Total 113 100.0

TABLE 166
RESPONSES TO QUESTION IV.5.

Response Frequency Percent
Under 30 11 8.1
31 - 40 53 39.6
41 - 50 45 33.6
51 - 60 25 18.7
61 + 0 0.0
Total 134 100.0

 

239

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 167
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 1V.6.
Response Frequency Percent
I-A 65 48.5
I-AA 37 27.6
I-AAA 32 23.9
Total 134 100.0
TABLE 168
RESPONSES TO QUESTION IV.7.
Response Frequency Percent
Integrated men's and women's
intercollegiate athletics 108 81.2
Segregated men's and women's
intercollegiate athletics 19 14.3
Other 6 4.5
Total 133 100.0
TABLE 169
RESPONSES TO QUESTION IV.8.
Response Frequency Percent
Male 122 96.1
Female 5 3.9
Total 127 100.0

 

240

TABLE 170

RESPONSES TO QUESTION IV.9.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
0 3 2.3
4 1 .8
6 4 3.1
7 6 4.7
8 7 5.4
9 15 11.6

10 27 20.9
11 4 3.1
12 15 11.6
13 6 4.7
14 3 2.3
15 8 6.2
16 8 6.2
17 4 3.1
18 5 3.9
19 1 .8
20 4 3.1
21 1 .8
22 3 2.3
24 1 .8
25 1 .8
27 1 .8
32 1 .8
Total 129 100.0
TABLE 171
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 1V.10.

Response Frequency Percent
0 7 5.4
1 15 11.6
2 32 24.8
3 23 17.8
4 25 19.4
5 13 10.1
6 7 5.4
7 2 1.6
8 2 1.6

241

TABLE 171-Continued

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
10 2 1.6
17 1 .8
Total 129 100.0

TABLE 172
RESPONSES TO QUESTION IV.11.

Response Frequency Percent
0 25 20.0
1 37 29.6
2 26 20.8
3 14 11.2
4 11 8.8
5 4 3.2
6 5 4.0
7 1 .8
8 1 .8

18 1 .8
Total 125 100.0
TABLE 173
RESPONSES TO QUESTION IV.12.

Response Frequency Percent

NCAA 135 100.0

AIAW 0 0.0

Institutional 0 0.0

Other 0 0.0

 

Total 135 100.0

 

APPENDIX H

FREQUENCY COUNTS AND PERCENTAGES FOR RESPONSES
TO DIRECTOR OF ATHLETICS QUESTIONNAIRE

APPENDIX H

FREQUENCY COUNTS AND PERCENTAGES FOR RESPONSES TO
DIRECTOR OF ATHLETICS QUESTIONNAIRE

TABLE 174

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 1.1.a.

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 92 87.6
No 13 12.4
Total 105 100.0

TABLE 175

RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.1.b.

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Director of Athletics 81 78.6
Vice President 1 1.0
Associate Vice President 1 1.0
CEO 1 1.0
More than one person 6 5.8
Other 13 12.6
Total 103 100.0

 

242

243

TABLE 176

RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.2.a.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Meet with regularly 90 90.0
Meet with occasionally 8 8.0
Don't meet with 2 2.0
Total 100 100.0
TABLE 177
RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.2.b.
Response Frequency Percent
Meet with regularly 93 90.3
Meet with occasionally 8 7.8
Don't meet with 2 1.9
Total 103 100.0
TABLE 178
RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.2.C.
Response Frequency Percent
Meet with regularly 48 46.6
Meet with occasionally 55 53.4
Don't meet with O 0.0
Total 103 100.0

 

244

TABLE 179

RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.2.d.

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Meet with regularly 72 69.9
Meet with occasionally 29 28.2
Don't meet with 2 1.9
Total 103 100.0
TABLE 180

RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.2.e.

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Meet with regularly 44 41.5
Meet with occasionally 56 52.8
Don't meet with 6 5.7
Total 106 100.0
TABLE 181

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 1.3.a.

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Meet with regularly 87 88.8
Meet with occasionally 9 9.2
Don't meet with 2 2.0

 

Total 98 100.0

 

245

TABLE 182

RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.3.b.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Meet with regularly 76 73.8
Meet with occasionally 23 22.3
Don't meet with 4 3.9
Total 103 100.0
TABLE 183
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 1.3.c.
Response Frequency Percent
Meet with regularly 21 20.6
Meet with occasionally 65 63.7
Don't meet with 16 15.7
Total 102 100.0
TABLE 184
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 1.3.d.
Response Frequency Percent
Meet with regularly 19 19.0
Meet with occasionally 56 56.0
Don't meet with 25 25.0
Total 100 100.0

 

246

TABLE 185

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 1.3.9.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Meet with regularly 6 5.8
Meet with occasionally 53 51.5
Don't meet with 44 42.7
Total 103 100.0

TABLE 186
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 1.4.a.

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 8 7.7
Consultative capacity 20 19.2
Decision maker 76 73.1
Total 104 100.0

TABLE 187
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 1.4.b.

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 10 9.7
Consultative capacity 20 19.4
Decision maker 73 70.9

 

Total 103 100.0

 

247

TABLE 188

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 1.4.C.

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 7 7.1
Consultative capacity 25 25.3
Decision maker 67 67.7
Total 99 100.0

TABLE 189

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 1.4.d.

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 8 7.8
Consultative capacity 24 23.3
Decision maker 71 68.9
Total 103 100.0

TABLE 190

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 1.4.e.

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 10 9.5
Consultative capacity 26 24.8
Decision maker 69 65.7

 

Total 105 100.0

 

248

TABLE 191

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 1.4.f.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 21 20.4
Consultative capacity 24 23.3
Decision maker 58 56.3
Total 103 100.0

TABLE 192
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 1.4.9.

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 10 9.6
Consultative capacity 18 17.3
Decision maker 76 73.1
Total 104 100.0

TABLE 193
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 1.4.h.

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 10 9.6
Consultative capacity 23 22.1
Decision maker 71 68.3
Total 104 100.0

 

249

TABLE 194

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 1.4.1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 19 18.4
Consultative capacity 31 30.1
Decision maker 53 51.5
Total 103 100.0

TABLE 195
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 1.4.j.

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 13 12.6
Consultative capacity 23 22.3
Decision maker 67 65.1
Total 103 100.0

TABLE 196
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 1.4.k.

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 15 14.6
Consultative capacity 27 26.2
Decision maker 61 59.2
Total 103 100.0

 

250

TABLE 197

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 1.4.1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 17 16.8
Consultative capacity 34 33.4
Decision maker 50 49.5
Total 101 100.0

TABLE 198
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 1.4.m.

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 9 8.7
Consultative capacity 24 23.3
Decision maker 70 68.0
Total 103 100.0

TABLE 199
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 1.4.n.

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 11 10.7
Consultative capacity 25 24.3
Decision maker 67 65.0
Total 103 100.0

 

251

TABLE 200

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 1.4.0.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 13 12.7
Consultative capacity 32 31.4
Decision maker 57 55.9
Total 102 100.0

TABLE 201
RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.4.p.

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 22 22.2
Consultative capacity 32 32.3
Decision maker 45 45.5
Total 99 100.0

TABLE 202
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 1.4.q.

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 20 19.4
Consultative capacity 34 33.0
Decision maker 49 47.6
Total 103 100.0

 

252

TABLE 203

RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.4.r.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 17 16.3
Consultative capacity 33 31.7
Decision maker 54 51.9
Total 104 100.0

TABLE 204
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 1.4.8.

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 29 27.9
Consultative capacity 36 34.6
Decision maker 39 37.5
Total 104 100.0

TABLE 205
RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.4.t.

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 9 8.7
Consultative capacity 41 39.8
Decision maker 53 51.5
Total 103 100.0

 

TABLE 206

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 1.4.u.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 13 12.5
Consultative capacity 38 36.5
Decision maker 53 51.0
Total 104 100.0

TABLE 207
RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.4.v.1_

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 12 11.7
Consultative capacity 24 23.3
Decision maker 67 65.0
Total 103 100.0

TABLE 208
RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.4.v.2

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 12 11.9
Consultative capacity 28 27.7
Decision maker 61 60.4
Total 101 100.0

 

254

TABLE 209

RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.4.V.3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 10 10.1
Consultative capacity 22 22.2
Decision maker 67 67.7
Total 99 100.0

TABLE 210
RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.4.w.

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 14 14.3
Consultative capacity 29 29.6
Decision maker 55 56.1
Total 98 100.0

TABLE 211
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 1.4.x.

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 38 40.4
Consultative capacity 31 33.0
Decision maker 25 26.6
Total 94 100.0

 

255

TABLE 212

RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.4.y.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 45 49.5
Consultative capacity 32 35.1
Decision maker 14 15.4
Total 91 100.0

TABLE 213
RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.4.z.

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 33 33.0
Consultative capacity 30 30.0
Decision maker 37 37.0
Total 100 100.0

TABLE 214
RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.4.aa.

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 23 22.3
Consultative capacity 33 32.0
Decision maker 47 45.7
Total 103 100.0

 

TABLE 215

RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.4.bb.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 20 19.6
Consultative capacity 28 27.5
Decision maker 54 52.9
Total 102 100.0

TABLE 216
RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.4.Cc.

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 41 41.0
Consultative capacity 27 27.0
Decision maker 32 32.0
Total 100 100.0

TABLE 217
RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.4.dd.

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 9 8.7
Consultative capacity 36 34.6
Decision maker 59 56.7
Total 104 100.0

 

257

TABLE 218

RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.4.ee.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 20 19.2
Consultative capacity 28 26.9
Decision maker 56 53.8
Total 104 100.0

TABLE 219
RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.4.ff.

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 19 18.6
Consultative capacity 32 31.4
Decision maker 51 50.0
Total 102 100.0

TABLE 220
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 1.4.99.

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 10 9.6
Consultative capacity 31 29.8
Decision maker 63 60.6
Total 104 100.0

 

258

TABLE 221

RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.4.hh.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 38 37.3
Consultative capacity 34 33.3
Decision maker 30 29.4
Total 102 100.0

TABLE 222
RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.5.a.

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 16 15.4
Consultative capacity 72 69.2
Decision maker 16 15.4
Total 104 100.0

TABLE 223
RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.5.b.

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 16 15.4
Consultative capacity 56 53.8
Decision maker 32 30.8
Total 104 100.0

 

259

TABLE 224

RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.5.C.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 18 17.6
Consultative capacity 66 64.7
Decision maker 18 17.6
Total 102 100.0

TABLE 225
RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.5.d.

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 11 10.6
Consultative capacity 66 63.5
Decision maker 27 26.0
Total 104 100.0

TABLE 226
RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.5.e.

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 16 15.4
Consultative capacity 67 64.4
Decision maker 21 20.2
Total 104 100.0

 

260

TABLE 227

RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.5.f.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 31 30.7
Consultative capacity 49 48.5
Decision maker 21 20.8
Total 101 100.0

TABLE 228
RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.5.g.

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 11 10.6
Consultative capacity 68 65.4
Decision maker 25 24.0
Total 104 100.0

TABLE 229
RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.5.h.

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 16 15.4
Consultative capacity 67 64.4
Decision maker 21 20.2
Total 104 100.0

 

261

TABLE 230

RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.5.i.

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 24 23.1
Consultative capacity 60 57.7
Decision maker 20 19.2
Total 104 100.0

TABLE 231

RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.5.j.

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 13 12.5
Consultative capacity 56 53.8
Decision maker 35 33.7
Total 104 100.0

TABLE 232

RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.5.k.

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 20 19.2
Consultative capacity 52 50.0
Decision maker 32 30.8

 

Total 104 100.0

 

262

TABLE 233

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 1.5.1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 27 26.2
Consultative capacity 46 44.7
Decision maker 30 29.1
Total 103 100.0

TABLE 234
RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.5.m.

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 22 21.4
Consultative capacity 65 63.1
Decision maker 16 15.5
Total 103 100.0

TABLE 235
RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.5.n.

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 26 25.2
Consultative capacity 62 60.2
Decision maker 15 14.6
Total 103 100.0

 

263

TABLE 236

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 1.5.0.

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 28 27.5
Consultative capacity 60 58.8
Decision maker 14 13.7
Total 102 100.0

TABLE 237

RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.5.p.

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 32 31.7
Consultative capacity 55 54.5
Decision maker 14 13.9
Total 101 100.0

TABLE 238

RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.5.q.

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 16 15.5
Consultative capacity 53 51.5
Decision maker 34 33.0

 

Total 103 100.0

 

264

TABLE 239

RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.5.r.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 25 24.3
Consultative capacity 58 56.3
Decision maker 20 19.4
Total 103 100.0

TABLE 240
RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.5.s.

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 47 45.6
Consultative capacity 45 43.7
Decision maker 11 10.7
Total 103 100.0

TABLE 241
RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.5.t.

Response ‘ Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 35 34.0
Consultative capacity 60 58.3
Decision maker 8 7.7
Total 103 100.0

 

265

TABLE 242

RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.5.u.

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 39 37.9
Consultative capacity 57 55.3
Decision maker 7 6.8
Total 103 100.0

TABLE 243

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 16 15.4
Consultative capacity 58 55.8
Decision maker 30 28.8
Total 104 100.0

TABLE 244

RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.5.V.2

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 17 16.3
Consultative capacity 56 53.8
Decision maker 31 29.8

 

Total 104 100.0

 

266

TABLE 245

RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.5.V.3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 13 12.6
Consultative capacity 65 63.1
Decision maker 25 24.3
Total 103 100.0

TABLE 246
RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.5.w.

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 19 19.2
Consultative capacity 54 54.5
Decision maker 26 26.3
Total 99 100.0

TABLE 247
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 1.5.x.

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 42 44.2
Consultative capacity 40 42.1
Decision maker 13 13.7
Total 95 100.0

 

267

TABLE 248

RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.5.y.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 43 47.3
Consultative capacity 38 41.8
Decision maker 10 11.0
Total 91 100.0

TABLE 249
RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.5.z.

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 33 33.7
Consultative capacity 50 51.0
Decision maker 15 15.3
Total 98 100.0

TABLE 250
RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.5.aa.

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 28 28.0
Consultative capacity 48 48.0
Decision maker 24 24.0
Total 100 100.0

 

268

TABLE 251

RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.5.bb.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 22 21.8
Consultative capacity 59 58.4
Decision maker 20 19.8
Total 101 100.0

TABLE 252
RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.5.CC.

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 33 33.0
Consultative capacity 44 44.0
Decision maker 23 23.0
Total 100 100.0

TABLE 253
RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.5.dd.

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 23 22.8
Consultative capacity 64 63.4
Decision maker 14 13.9
Total 101 100.0

 

TABLE 254

RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.5.ee.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 27 26.5
Consultative capacity 57 55.9
Decision maker 18 17.6
Total 102 100.0

TABLE 255
RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.5.ff.

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 32 32.0
Consultative capacity 57 57.0
Decision maker 11 11.0
Total 100 100.0

TABLE 256
RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.5.gg.

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 17 16.8
Consultative capacity 72 71.3
Decision maker 12 11.9
Total 101 100.0

 

270

TABLE 257

RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.5.hh.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Advisory capacity 37 37.4
Consultative capacity 48 48.5
Decision maker 14 14.1
Total 99 100.0

TABLE 258
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 1.6.

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 83 79.0
No 22 21.0
Total 105 100.0

TABLE 259
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 1.7.

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 71 86.6
No 11 13.4
Total 82 100.0

 

271

TABLE 260

RESPONSES TO QUESTION I.8.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 74 93.7
No 5 6.3
Total 79 100.0

TABLE 261
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 1.9.

Response Frequency Percent.
Yes 100 97.1
No 3 2.9
Total 103 100.0

TABLE 262
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 1.10.

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 98 93.3
No 7 6.7
Total 105 100.0

 

272

TABLE 263

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 1.12.

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 99 98.0
No 2 2.0
Total 101 100.0

TABLE 264

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 11.1.

 

 

Response Frequency Percent

 

No interest in governing women's
athletics or offering women's
championships shown by men's
conference 4 12.1

No interest in holding membership
in the same conference for
women shown by institutional
representatives 1 3.0

Affiliation with men's conference
cost prohibitive 8 24.3

Affiliation with men's conference
inconsistent with institutional
goals for the women's athletic
program 3 9.1

Other 17 51.5

 

Total 33 100.0

 

273

TABLE 265

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 11.2.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 65 97.0
No 2 3.0
Total 67 100.0

TABLE 266
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 11.4.

Response Frequency ' Percent
Yes 84 84.0
No 16 16.0
Total 100 100.0

TABLE 267
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 11.5.

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 81 97.6
No 2 2.4
Total 83 100.0

 

274

TABLE 268

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 11.6.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Ultimate decision-maker 44 55.0
Consultative role 32 40.0
Advisory role 4 5.0
Total 80 100.0

TABLE 269
RESPONSES TO QUESTION II.7.

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 83 83.0
No 17 17.0
Total 100 100.0

TABLE 270
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 11.8.

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 82 98.8
No 1 1.2
Total 83 100.0

 

275

TABLE 271

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 11.9.

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Ultimate decision-makers 21 26.2
Consultative role 52 65.0
Advisory role 7 8.8
Total 80 100.0

TABLE 272

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 11.10.

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Conference commissioner 14 14.3
Conference officers 6 6.1
Faculty athletic representatives group 5 5.1
Directors of athletics group 34 34.7
Chief executive officers group 6 6.1
Other 33 33.7
Total 98 100.0

TABLE 273

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 11.11.

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 64 66.7
No 32 33.3

 

Total 96 100.0

 

276

TABLE 274

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 11.12.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 96 98.0
No 2 2.0
Total 98 100.0

TABLE 275
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 11.13.

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 94 95.9
No 4 4.1
Total 98 100.0

TABLE 276
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 11.15.

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 95 96.0
No 4 4.0
Total 99 100.0

 

277

TABLE 277

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 111.1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 90 86.5
No 14 13.5
Total 104 100.0

TABLE 278
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 111.2.

Response Frequency Percent

Male 13 14.4

Female 77 85.6

Total 90 100.0

TABLE 279
RESPONSES TO QUESTION III.3.a.1.

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 91 90.1
No 10 9.9
Total 101 100.0

 

278

TABLE 280

RESPONSES TO QUESTION III.3.a.2.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent

Delegate 74 83.1

Alternate 14 15.7

Visitor I 1.1

Total 89 100.0

TABLE 281
RESPONSES TO QUESTION III.3.b.1.

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 87 88.8
No 11 11.2
Total 98 100.0

TABLE 282
RESPONSES TO QUESTION III.3.b.2.

Response Frequency Percent

Delegate 68 81.0

Alternate 14 16.7

Visitor 2 2.4

Total 84 100.0

 

279

TABLE 283

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 111.3.C.l.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 76 85.4
No 13 14.6
Total 89 100.0

TABLE 284
RESPONSES TO QUESTION III.3.c.2.

Response Frequency Percent

Delegate 58 79.5

Alternate 15 20.5

Visitor 0 0.0

Total 73 100.0

TABLE 285
RESPONSES TO QUESTION III.3.d.1.

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 73 83.0
No 15 17.0
Total 88 100.0

 

280

TABLE 286

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 111.3.d.2.

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent

Delegate 59 84.3

Alternate 10 14.3

Visitor I 1.4

Total 70 100.0
TABLE 287

RESPONSES TO QUESTION III.3.e.1.

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 69 79.3
No 18 20.7
Total 87 100.0

TABLE 288

RESPONSES TO QUESTION III.3.e.2.

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Delegate 51 77.3
Alternate 15 22.7
Visitor 0 0.0

 

Total 66 100.0

 

281

TABLE 289

RESPONSES TO QUESTION III.4.a.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 81 94.2
No 5 5.8
Total 86 100.0

TABLE 290
RESPONSES TO QUESTION III.4.b.

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 75 91.5
No 7 8.5
Total 82 100.0

TABLE 291
RESPONSES TO QUESTION III.4.c.

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 68 93.2
No 5 6.8
Total 73 100.0

 

282

TABLE 292

RESPONSES TO QUESTION III.4.d.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 65 91.5
No 6 8.5
Total 71 100.0

TABLE 293
RESPONSES TO QUESTION III.4.e.

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 62 92.5
No 5 7.5
Total 67 100.0

TABLE 294
RESPONSES TO QUESTION III.5.a.

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 28 32.2
No 59 67.8
Total 87 100.0

 

283

TABLE 295

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 111.5.b.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 21 24.7
No 64 75.3
Total 85 100.0

TABLE 296
RESPONSES TO QUESTION III.5.c.

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 26 34.7
No 49 65.3
Total 75 100.0

TABLE 297
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 111.5.d.

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 19 26.0
No 54 74.0
Total 73 100.0

 

284

TABLE 298

RESPONSES TO QUESTION III.5.e.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 18 26.1
No 51 73.9
Total 69 100.0

TABLE 299
RESPONSES TO QUESTION III.6.a.

Response Frequency Percent

Always 1 1.0

Frequently 6 5.9

Sometimes 22 21.6

Seldom 35 34.2

Never 38 37.3

Total 102 100.0

TABLE 300
RESPONSES TO QUESTION III.6.b.

Response Frequency Percent

Always 16 15.5

Frequently 43 41.7

Sometimes 33 32.0

Seldom 8 7.9

Never 3 2.9

Total 103 100.0

 

285

TABLE 301

RESPONSES TO QUESTION III.6.C.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Always 34 33.3
Frequently 39 38.2
Sometimes 25 24.6
Seldom 3 2.9
Never 1 1.0
Total 102 100.0
TABLE 302
RESPONSES TO QUESTION III.6.d.
Response Frequency Percent
Always 86 82.8
Frequently 12 11.5
Sometimes 4 3.8
Seldom 2 1.9
Never 0 0.0
Total 104 100.0
TABLE 303
RESPONSES TO QUESTION III.6.e.
Response Frequency Percent
Always 11 11.1
Frequently 13 13.1
Sometimes 29 29.3
Seldom 24 24.3
Never 22 22.2
Total 99 100.0

 

286

TABLE 304

RESPONSES TO QUESTION III.6.f.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Always 60 57.7
Frequently 21 20.2
Sometimes 18 17.3
Seldom 5 4.8
Never 0 0.0
Total 104 100.0
TABLE 305
RESPONSES TO QUESTION III.6.g.
Response Frequency Percent
Always 6 6.0
Frequently 8 8.0
Sometimes 24 24.0
Seldom 30 30.0
Never 32 32.0
Total 100 100.0
TABLE 306
RESPONSES TO QUESTION III.6.h.
Response Frequency Percent
Always 56 54.4
Frequently 21 20.4
Sometimes 18 17.5
Seldom 6 5.8
Never 2 1.9
Total 103 100.0

 

287

TABLE 307

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 111.6.1.

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Always 21 21.2
Frequently 21 21.2
Sometimes 28 28.3
Seldom 24 24.2
Never 5 5.1
Total 99 100.0
TABLE 308

RESPONSES TO QUESTION III.6.j.

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Always 9 9.0
Frequently 24 24.0
Sometimes 32 32.0
Seldom 21 21.0
Never 14 14.0
Total 100 100.0
TABLE 309

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 111.6.k.

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Always 33 33.7
Frequently 29 29.6
Sometimes 23 23.5
Seldom 7 7.1
Never 6 6.1
Total 98 100.0

 

288

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 310
RESPONSES TO QUESTION III.7.a

Response Frequency Percent
Decision maker 0 0.0
Consultative input 6 5.9
Advisory input 27 26.5
Not involved 69 67.6
Total 102 100.0

TABLE 311
RESPONSES TO QUESTION.III.7.b.

Response Frequency Percent
Decision maker 4 3.9
Consultative input 41 39.8
Advisory input 58 56.3
Not involved 0 0.0
Total 103 100.0

TABLE 312
RESPONSES TO QUESTION III.7.C.

Response Frequency Percent
Decision maker 8 8.0
Consultative input 63 63.0
Advisory input 28 28.0
Not involved 1 1.0
Total 100 100.0

 

 

289

TABLE 313

RESPONSES TO QUESTION III.7.d.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Decision maker 67 67.0
Consultative input 25 25.0
Advisory input 4 4.0
Not involved 4 4.0
Total 100 100.0

TABLE 314

RESPONSES TO QUESTION III.7.e.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Decision maker 3 3.0
Consultative input 16 16.2
Advisory input 43 43.4
Not involved 37 37.4
Total 99 100.0

TABLE 315

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 111.7.f.

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Decision maker 70 68.6
Consultative input 20 19.6
Advisory input 10 9.8
Not involved 2 2.0

 

Total 102 100.0

 

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 111.7.9.

290

TABLE 316

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Decision maker 10 9.9
Consultative input 15 14.9
Advisory input 36 35.6
Not involved 40 39.6
Total 101 100.0

TABLE 317
RESPONSES TO QUESTION III.7.h.

Response Frequency Percent
Decision maker 22 22.0
Consultative input 54 54.0
Advisory input 20 20.0
Not involved 4 4.0
Total 100 100.0

TABLE 318
RESPONSES TO QUESTION III.7.i.

Response Frequency Percent
Decision maker 4 4.1
Consultative input 40 40.8
Advisory input 46 46.9
Not involved 8 8.2
Total 98 100.0

 

291

TABLE 319

RESPONSES TO QUESTION III.7.j.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Decision maker 4 4.0
Consultative input 20 20.2
Advisory input 56 56.6
Not involved 19 19.2
Total 99 100.0

TABLE 320
RESPONSES TO QUESTION III.7.k.

Response Frequency Percent
Decision maker 11 11.2
Consultative input 34 34.7
Advisory input 45 45.9
Not involved 8 8.2
Total 98 100.0

TABLE 321
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 111.9.

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 103 99.0
No 1 1.0
Total 104 100.0

 

 

292

TABLE 322

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 111.11.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 101 99.0
No 1 1.0
Total 102 100.0
TABLE 323
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 111.14.a.
Response Frequency Percent
Yes 44 42.3
No 60 57.7
Total 104 100.0
TABLE 324
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 111.14.b.
Response Frequency Percent
CEO 45 76.2
Faculty Representative 2 3.4
PWA 3 5.1
More than one person 5 8.5
Director of Athletics 4 6.8

 

Total

59

100.0

 

293

TABLE 325

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 111.15.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 55 52.9
No 49 47.1
Total 104 100.0

TABLE 326
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 111.16.

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 99 96.1
No 4 3.9
Total 103 100.0

TABLE 327
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 111.17.

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 93 92.1
No 8 7.9
Total 101 100.0

 

294

TABLE 328

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 111.19.

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 95 93.1
No 7 6.9
Total 102 100.0

TABLE 329

RESPONSES TO QUESTION IV.1.

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Director of Athletics 92 88.5
Director of Men's Athletics 5 4.8
Other 7 6.7
Total 104 100.0

TABLE 330

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 1V.2.

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
CEO 56 54.4
Vice President 30 29.1
Executive Vice President 2 1.9
Associate Vice President 1 1.0
Assistant to the President 4 3.9
Dean 6 5.8
Other 4 3.9

 

Total 103 100.0

 

295

TABLE 331

RESPONSES TO QUESTION IV.3.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
1961 1 1.0
1963 2 1.9
1964 1 1.0
1965 2 1.9
1966 1 1.0
1967 2 1.9
1968 1 1.0
1969 2 1.9
1970 4 3.9
1971 1 1.0
1972 3 2.9
1973 2 1.9
1974 2 1.9
1975 4 3.9
1976 2 1.9
1977 7 6.8
1978 8 7.8
1979 6 5.8
1980 9 8.7
1981 4 3.9
1982 6 5.8
1983 12 11.7
1984 11 10.7
1985 10 9.7
Total 103 100.0

TABLE 332
RESPONSES TO QUESTION IV.4.a.

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 15 15.0
No 85 85.0

 

Total 100 100.0

 

296

TABLE 333

RESPONSES TO QUESTION IV.4.b.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 9 9.4
No 87 90.6
Total 96 100.0

TABLE 334
RESPONSES TO QUESTION IV.4.c.

Response Frequency Percent
Yes 5 5.9
No 80 94.1
Total 85 100.0

TABLE 335
RESPONSES TO QUESTION 1V.5.

Response Frequency Percent

Under 30 l 1.0

31 - 40 17 16.3

41 - 50 35 33.7

51 - 60 42 40.4

61 + 9 8.7

Total 104 100.0

 

297

TABLE 336

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 1V.6.

 

 

 

 

 

Response Frequency Percent
I-A 42 40.4
I-AA 30 28.8
I-AAA 32 30.8
Total 104 100.0

TABLE 337

RESPONSES TO QUESTION IV.7.

 

 

Response Frequency Percent

 

Integrated men's and women's

intercollegiate athletics 96 92.3
Segregated men's and women's

intercollegiate athletics 8 7.7
Other 0 0.0

 

Total 104 100.0

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

American Association for Health, Physical Education, and
Recreation. AIAW Handbook of Policies and Interim
Operating Procedures 1971-72. Washington, D.C.:
American Association for Health, Physical Education,
and Recreation, 1971.

Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women. AIAW
Directory 1980-81. Washington, ELC.: Association for
Intercollegiate Athletics for Women, 1980.

. AIAW Handbook 1979-80. Washington, ILC.:

Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women,
1979.

Barnes, Mildred, ed. AIAW Handbook of Policies and
Operating Procedures 1973-74. Washington, ILC.:
American Association for Health, Physical Education,
and Recreation, 1973.

Biddle, Bruce J. Role Theory: Expectations, Identities,
and Behaviors. New York: Academic Press, 1979.

Division for Girls and Women's Sports. Philosophy and
Standards for Girls and Womenfs Sports. washington,
DJL: American Association for Health, Physical
Education, and Recreation, 1973.

 

. Standards in Sports for Girls and Women.
Washington, DJL: American Association for Health,
Physical Education, and Recreation, 1958.

Dunkle, Margaret Ck Competitive Athletics: In Search of
Equal Opportunity. Washington, DJL: United States
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1976.

. “Equal Opportunity for Women in Sports." In
Women's Athletics: Coping with Controversy, pp. 9-19.
Edited by Barbara J. Hoepner. Washington, DJL:
American Association for Health, Physical Education,
and Recreation, 1974.

38 Federal Register. Washington, 1LC.: Office of the
Federal Register, 20 September 1973, pp. 26384-26389.

298

299

Gerber, Ellen: Felshin, Jan: Berlin, Pearl: and Wyrick,
Waneen. The American Woman in Sport. Reading,
Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1974.

Holbrook, Leona. 'Women's Participation in American Sport."
In Athletics in America, pp. 43-59. Edited by Arnold

Flath. Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon State University
Press, 1972.

Holland, Judith R., ed. AIAW Handbook of Policies and
Operating Procedures 1974-75. Washington, 1LC.:
American Association for Health, Physical Education,
and Recreation, 1974.

Kepner, Charles Hg, and Trejoe, Benjamin B. The Rational
Manager. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1965.

 

Komisar, Lucy. The New Feminism. New York: Franklin
Watts, 1971.

Magnusson, Lucille. "The Development of Programs.“ In
Women's.Athletics: Coping with Controversy, pp. 55-
58. Edited by Barbara J. Hoepner. Washington, D.C.:
American Association for Health, Physical Education,
and Recreation, 1974.

More Hurdles to Clear: Women and Girls in Competitive
Athletics. Washington, 1LC.: United States
Commission on Civil Rights, [1980].

National Association for Girls and Women in Sport. AIAW
Directory 1976-77. Washington, 1LC.: American
Association for Health, Physical Education, and
Recreation, 1976.

. AIAW Handbook 1977-78. Washington, ILC.:
American Association for Health, Physical Education,
and Recreation, 1977.

. AIAW Handbook 1978-79. Washington, 1LC.:

American Association for Health, Physical Education,
and Recreation, 1978.

National Collegiate Athletic Association. NCAA
Championships: Dates and Sites. Mission, Kansas:
National Collegiate Athletic Association, 1983.

. NCAA Directory 1984-85. Mission, Kansas:
National Collegiate Athletic Association, 1984.

. 1981 Convention Proceedings. Shawnee Mission,

Kansas: National Collegiate Athletic Association,
1981.

300
Oglesby, Carole. Women and Sport: From Myth to Reality.
Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger, 1978.

Parkhouse, Bonnie L. and Lapin, Jackie. Women Who Win.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1980.

 

Rossi, Alice S. and Calderwood, Ann. Academic Women_on the
Move. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1973.

 

Ryan, W. Carson, Jr. The Literature of American School and
College Athletics. Boston: The Merrymount Press,
1929.

Sage, George H., ed. Sport and American Society. Reading,
Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1970.

Savage, Howard J.: McGovern, John T.: and Bentley, Harold W.
Current Developments in American College Sports.
Boston: The Merrymount Press, 1931.

Spears, Betty. "The Emergence of Women in Sport." In
Women's Athletics: Coping with Controversy, pp. 26-
40. Edited by Barbara J. Hoepner. Washington, D.C.:
American Association for Health, Physical Education,
and Recreation, 1974.

Swanson, Richard A. "From Glide to Stride: Significant
Events in a Century of American Women's Sport.” In
Women's Athletics: Coping with Controversy, pp. 43-
53. Edited by Barbara J. Hoepner. Washington, D.C.:
American Association for Health, Physical Education,
and Recreation, 1974.

Thorpe, Joanne. "The Relationship of DGWS to AIAWJ' lkl
Womenfs Athletics: Coping with Controversy, pp. 59-
63. Edited by Barbara J. Hoepner. Washington, D.C.:
American Association for Health, Physical Education,
and Recreation, 1974.

Twin, Stephanie L. Out of the Bleachers. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1979.

 

20 United States Code. Education Amendments of 1972,
Section 1681(a), Washington, £LC.: United States
Printing Office, 1972.

VanDalen, Deobold B., and Bennett, Bruce L. A World History
of Physical Education. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice Hall, 1971.

 

301

Periodicals

'A Donna Lopiano Eye-View of Women's Sports in America.‘
Scholastic Coach, January 1984, pp. 30+.

Burgess, William J. "A Common Strategy.” Coaching:
Women's Athletics, March/April 1981, pp. 4-5+.

 

Canham, Don. "Opposition Forwarded to Title IX
Regulations.“ NCAA News, 15 May 1974, p. 6.

Coffey, Margaret A. 'The Sportswomanfi' Journal of Health,
Physical Education, and Recreation 36 (February 1965):
38-42.

"Comes the Revolution.“ Time, 26 June 1978, pp. 54-59.

Cox, Thomas A. "Intercollegiate Athletics and Title IXJ'
George Washington Law Review 46 (November 1977):34-64.

Daniel, Dave (edJ. "HEW Regulations Threaten College
Athletics.“ NCAA News, 1 March 1974, p. 2.

 

. "Colleges Seek Input to Title IX.“ NCAA News,
15 March 1974, p. 1.

 

Davison, Fred C. ”Intercollegiate Athletics and Title IX:
Equal Opportunity or Federal Incursion?" USA Today,
July 1979, pp. 35-37.

 

Engstrand, Gary. ”Don‘t Expect Fair Play from the NCAA for
Women." The Chronicle of Higher Education, 15
December 1980, p. 19.

”Equal Rights in Educationfl' Capitol: Woman, November
1984, pp. 1+.

 

Fields, Cheryl M. ”Ban Sought Against NCAA Women's
Championships." The Chronicle of Higher Education, 21
October 1981, p. 1+.

. "Court Rejects Claim of WOmen'S Group that NCAA
Violated Anti-trust Lan' The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 9 March 1983, p. 17.

 

. “HEW Softens Bias Stand.” The Chronicle of
Higher Education, 7 April 1975, p. 1+.

. “Sports Organizations Set to Debate Question of
Women's Championships.“ The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 8 December 1980, p. 1.

 

302

Fields, Cheryl M., and Middleton, Lorenzo. “Women's Sports
Group Stunned, Angered by NCAA Vote on Female
Championshipsfl' The Chronicle of Higher Education,
14 January 1980, p. 1.

Fields, Cheryl IL ”Women's Sports Group Plans for Possible
Dissolution.“ The Chronicle of Higher Education,
20 January 1982, p. 19.

Flygare, Thomas J. "HEW's New Guidelines on Sex
Discrimination in Collegiate Athletich' Phi Delta
Kappan 60 (March 1979): pp. 529-530.

 

Frank, James. "NCAA Governance.‘ Coaching: Women's
Athletics, March/April 1981, pp. 31-34.

Freeman, William H. “Controlling Athletics in Education:
History and Perspective»' IPaper presented at the Pre-
Convention Symposium on the History of Sport and
Physical Education, American Association for Health,
Physical Education, and Recreation, Kansas City,
Missouri, April 1978.

Gerber, Ellen W. "The Changing Female Image: A Brief
Commentary on Sport Competition for Women.” Journal
of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation 42
(October I971):59-61.

. "The Controlled Development.of Collegiate Sport
for Women 1923-1936»' Journal of Sport History 2
(Spring 1975):1-28.

Gilbert, Bil, and Williamson, Nancyu "Programmed to be
Losers.” Sports Illustrated, 11 June 1973, pp. 60-73.

. “Sport is Unfair to Women." Sports Illustrated,
21 May 1973, pp. 88-98.

 

Greenberg, Randi Jean. "AIAW vs NCAA: The Takeover and
ImplicationsJ' JOurnal of the National Association
for Women Deans, Administrators, and Counselors 47
(Winter 1974):29-36.

Gwaltney, Corbin. "Anti-Sex Bias Rules.” The Chronicle of
Higher Education, 10 March 1975, p. 10.

 

. ”Mood in Congress Alarms Women.” The Chronicle
of Higher Education, 28 April 1975, p. 7.

 

Hanford, George. “Intercollegiate Athletics Today and
Tomorrow: The President's Challenge.“ Educational
Record 57 (1977): pp. 232-235.

 

303

Hogan, Candace Lyle. ”A Token of FriendshipJ' Coaching:
Women's Athletics, March/April, 1981, pp. 21-22.

 

 

. “From Here to Equality: Title IX." womenSports,
September 1977, pp. 16-26+.

 

. 'NCAA and AIAW: Will the Men Score on Womenfis
Athletics?“ womenSports, January 1977, pp. 46-49.

Huckle, Patricia. “Back to the Starting Line." American
Behavioral Scientist 21 (January/February 1978):379-
392.

Huesner, W. W. ”Basic Physiological Concepts as They Relate
to Girls' Sports.“ National Institute on Girl's
Sports, 28 September 1965. (Mimeographed.)

Hult, Joan L. 'The Philosophical Conflicts in Men's and
Women's Collegiate Athletics.” Quest 32(1980):77-94.

LaNoue, George R. ”Athletics and Equality: How to Comply
with Title IX Without Tearing Down the Stadium)‘
Change 8 (November 1976):27-30+

Lee, Mabel. "The Case For and Against Intercollegiate
Athletics for Women and the Situation Since 1923.”
Research Quarterly 2 (May 1931):93-127.

 

Ley, Katherine. "Women in Sports: Where Do We Go from
Here, Boys?" Phi Delta Kappan 56 (October 1974):129-
131.

 

Loggia, Marjorie. 'On the Playing Fields of History." Ms.,
July 1973, pp. 63-64.

Magnusson, Lucille. 'The What and Why of AIAWJ' JOurnal of
Health, Physical Education, and Recreation 43 (March
1972):71.

 

Middleton, Lorenzo, and Fields, Cheryl. “NCAA Votes to
Widen Role in Women's Sports; Action is Bitterly
Debated, 'Power Play' Charged." The Chronicle of
Higher Education, 19 January 1981, p. 6.

 

 

National Organization for Women. "Towards Equality in
Sport--Recommendations." Resolution passed at the
National Organization for Women's National Conference,
Washington, D.C., February 1973.

Pierce, Lea. "AIAW/NCAA: The Big Switch." Sportswoman's
T.E.A.M. Basketball Digest, October 1981, pp. 34-35+.

304

Scott, M. Gladys. ”Competition for Women in American
Colleges and Universitiesd‘ Researchguarterly 16
(May 1945):49-71.

“Sex Discrimination and Intercollegiate Athletich' Yale
Law Review 86 (May 1979):1254-1279.

Sisley, Becky In "Women in Administration: A Quest for
Leadership»' Journal of Physical Education and
Recreation 52 (April 1981):77-78.

 

"Texts of Statements by Three Sports Organizations on
Championshisz' The Chronicle of Higher Education,
8 December 1980, pp. 8-10.

Ulrich, Celeste. “Breakthrough or Breakdown.“ Coaching:
Women's Athletics, January/February 1980, pp. 18-19+.

 

. 'The End of an Era." Coaching: Women's
Athletics, September/October 1980, pp. 14-15+.

. "Valor in the Vanguard." Coaching: Women's
Athletics, January/February 1981, pp. 23-24+.

Wentworth, E. "HEW Offers ‘Nondisruptive' Bans in Sex
Bias." The Washington Post, 19 June 1974, Sec. A,
p. 1.

Wheeler, Elizabeth. ”NCAA vs AIAW." Women's Sports, June
1980, PP. 20-23+.

 

. 'War of the Words." Women's Sports, June 1981,
pp. 14-17.

 

Williams, Roger. "The Battle for Bucks in Womenks
Athletics.” Saturday Review, 21 January 1978, pp. 56-
57.

 

 

(Isl/11111211filial/guyIIIIIIIII/ll'llflilfljljil‘jfllr