praise... ., It. .7 awn... . a 36%;... .. y . c . in. .3. . . 39"....” an} . 39...... .1 Eli)... , m . 1 .3. LE"... ii. .3 £2.53 2K: V J n... .5. ...-wu.mwmfléau. m1. . .3... s . 6.2.... 32...... ...n.t.fl. 31. in!!! u. but... . 3...... . x. 1w x . . 5.291311 {.1} .uv «fin.- I .l‘ . . I! y ‘D . . a! u .3 3:37 . .‘t...o\1.dlttité . .31 1‘! . . . . "fin. (I35: :51 9..., fit. 90.i.ilx§ -33... 9... “.53." 1.. It .1: "HF: 5.43:.“ A ma. , UBRARY .2 W Michigan State 21 lb , University This is to certify that the dissertation entitled THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY: EXAMINING INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETIC RECRUITING presented by AMANDA LEIGH PAULE has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctoral degree in Kinesiology Mateo a.l2¢/v~.~ Major Professor’s Signature April 7, 2008 Date MSU is an affirmative-action, equal-opportunity employer .-.----~-.-A--.o-.-oc.—. -.-.—..—.- -~-.--.— - 4 -.-._.—.-.-.-.-._.-.-.-.- — PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE .y3;0720H 111410 lfiétfi<2§0m 5/08 K IProi/Acc8Pres/CIRC/DateDue indd THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY: EXAMINING INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETIC RECRUITING By Amanda Leigh Paule A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Kinesiology 2008 ABSTRACT THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY: EXAMINING INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETIC RECRUITING By Amanda Leigh Paule During the 2004-2005 school year, there were 7,018,709 girls and boys participating in high school athletics across the United States (National Federation of State High School Associations, 2005) and 389,556 athletes participating in all three divisions of collegiate athletics (Vicente, 2006). While there has been an increase in participation opportunities at the high school level, the playing field is still not equal for everyone in high school athletics when it comes to being recruited to play at the next level - college. As a result of limited participation opportunities at the collegiate level, most of the individuals who compete in high school athletics will not continue to play varsity sport in college. The purpose of this study was to examine the Division I intercollegiate athletic recruiting process through a grounded theory approach. Further, access to collegiate sport and the culture that exists around recruiting was also investigated. Through interviews with 25 head and assistant coaches, insight was acquired into what these coaches believed about various aspects of the recruitment process. Coaches were chosen for participation through a purposive sample. These coaches were identified as successful, winning coaches by their records in their conference or on that national scene. Further, the coaches in this study were also chosen to allow for maximum variation (Patton, 2002) along the dimensions of sport, athletes’ gender, revenue or non-revenue generating, collegiate athletic conference, and nature of pre-college sport affiliation (e.g., primarily high school, private youth leagues, AAU, etc.). In the interviews, the coaches discussed everything from where they go to identify athletes, how they recruit, what they think about the rules involved in the recruitment process to how differences in race, gender, and socioeconomic status affect the recruitment process. The interviews were analyzed in accordance with Patton’s (1990) strategies for data analysis. The transcripts were analyzed via a content and inductive analysis. Themes emerged from the data and the participants’ perceptions and beliefs were categorized into three themes: the recruiting process, ethics and rules, and sociocultural issues and access. There were also a wide variety of subthemes within each theme. While the perceptions and experiences surrounding the recruitment process varied, it was clear that the coaches truly enjoyed recruiting athletes and understood the importance of recruiting superior athletes to their program. However, issues of early recruiting, rule breaking, and negative recruiting also arose out of this study. These are all incredibly important issues that will hopefully be examined by the NCAA, so athletes can have a positive recruiting experience and make choices based upon facts and not misinformation. However, additional research is also needed to examine the dangers of early recruitment, recruiting based on ideologies, and negative recruiting. C0pyright by Amanda Leigh Paule 2008 ‘ This study is dedicated to Dr. Othello Harris and Dr. Valeria Freysinger for giving me the knowledge and confidence necessary to succeed in my doctoral program. I never would have accomplished any of this without you. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It is essential to acknowledge the assistance receiVed from many wonderful people. Without your help, I would not have been successful in completing my dissertation. First, I would like to thank Dr. Kristen Renn. You believed in me and this idea from the beginning. Thank you for agreeing to direct my dissertation. Without your support and guidance I never would have accomplished my dissertation. Thank you for keeping me sane. Thank you Dr. Yevonne Smith. I appreciate your time and insight into the sociology of recruiting. You have helped me realize what kind of professor I desire to be in the future. Dr. Daniel Gould and Dr. Steven Gold, you have given me the breadth of knowledge that is truly necessary for a person to succeed as a student and professor. I aspire to be able to demonstrate your uncanny ability to offer just the right information and motivation to my future students. You are both remarkable teachers and men. Thank you to the Laboratory for Diversity in Sport at Texas A&M University for awarding me the Diversity in Sport Dissertation Grant. The Michigan State University Dissertation Completion Grant also provided me valuable time and financial support to complete the dissertation process. Thank you for your belief in my vision for this project and its contribution to the field. I also want to thank the 25 head and assistant coaches from across the country that participated in this study. Thank you for sharing your knowledge and experiences about the recruitment process. Without you this study would not have happened. vi I have to thank my fi'iends, Jennifer Stiller, Ryan F lett, and R]. Elbin. Thank you for listening to me and providing me with support, research help, and valuable ideas. You three are amazing and I never would have made it through Michigan State without you. This study would not have been possible without the assistance of many other students and friends. Out of the kindness of your heart, and potentially a future letter of recommendation, you gave your time and brain power to this project. Whether it was spending hours transcribing or helping code and triangulate the data, I could not have completed this project without your assistance. Thus, I want to thank you Ryan Flett, Kelly Mattran, Michelle Harkins, Ashley Hudson, Michelle Manery, and Samantha Poisson-Smith. I must thank Nicole Ark for being a professional student with me. No one else can understand what we’ve been through and our poor life choices. Thank you for always listening to me complain and giving me the confidence in myself to keep on going. I don’t know if I would have completed my dissertation or grad school without you. I want to thank Aaron Moffett for his encouragement and time. Thank you for reading numerous drafts and your valuable insight. I truly appreciate everything you did to assist in the completion of this dissertation. Finally, I want to thank my family and fi'iends. I am constantly amazed at how lucky I am to have such amazing people in my life. Your love, patience, encouragement, and continuous support have meant the world to me. I know that there were numerous times that I was cranky and did not want to continue but you were always with words of encouragement to keep me going! Thank you, Aaron, Mom, Dad, Alicea, Ellen, Nicole, Kelley, and Heather. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... xi LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... xii CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1 Statement of the Problem. . . . . . . . . .. ...................................................................... 1 Importance of Athletics and Issues of Access ..................................................... 4 Purpose of Study/Research Questions ................................................................. 6 Research Questions. ............................................................................... 9 Research Design. . . . . . .. ........................................................................................ 9 Significance of the Study ..................................................................................... 9 Definitions of Terms ............................................................................................ 10 CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF LITERATURE .......................................................................................... 14 Theoretical Framework ........................................................................................ 1 5 Grounded Theory. . .................................................................................. 15 Critical Theory. . ...................................................................................... 17 Status Attainment ................................................................................................. 18 Intercollegiate Athletics in the United States ....................................................... 22 College Sport as Big Business ............................................................................. 24 Athletics and Academics. . . .. ............................................................................... 25 Graduation Rates. . ................................................................................... 27 The Business of Recruiting and Scholarships in Intercollegiate Athletics ......... 28 Access to Athletics ............................................................................................... 29 The Recruitment Process ..................................................................................... 31 Eligibility Requirements ...................................................................................... 32 The Business around Recruitment ....................................................................... 35 How College Coaches Recruit ............................................................................. 37 Amateur Athletic Union ....................................................................................... 39 CHAPTER THREE METHOD ........................................................................................................................ 42 Research Design ................................................................................................... 42 Qualitative Methodology ..................................................................................... 43 Sampling .................................................................................................. 44 Participants ............................................................................................... 45 Instrumentation ........................................................................................ 45 Data Collection Procedures ...................................................................... 46 Interview Data Analysis ........................................................................... 46 CHAPTER FOUR THE RECRUITING PROCESS ...................................................................................... 49 The Recruiting Process ........................................................................................ 51 viii Coaches’ Perceptions......................................... ...................................... 53 Recruiting Pressure ...................................................................... 53 Importance of Recruiting ............................................................. 57 The type of athlete ....................................................................... 60 How to.. ... ................................................................................... 64 Identifying athletes ...................................................................... 65 Early recruiting... . . . . ............................................................. 71 Selling points... . ........................................................................ 73 Changes........... ..................................................................................... 76 Changes in the recruiting timeline ............................................... 76 Technology. . ............................................................................... 78 Decisions........... ................................................................................... 81 CHAPTER FIVE ETHICS AND RULES .................................................................................................... 88 Sociocultural Issues and Access .......................................................................... 88 Rules... ..................................................................................... 90 Early Recruiting ....................................................................................... 94 Moral Decisions... ............................................................................ 97 Self-interest. . . . . . . . ....................................................................... 98 Negative recruiting. ........................................................ 101 CHAPTER SIX SOCIOCULTURAL ISSUES AND ACCESS ................................................................ 113 Sociocultural Issues and Access .......................................................................... 113 Geography ................................................................................................ 115 Gender...... .............................................................................................. 117 Gender differences. . . . . . . . ............................................................ 1 18 Sex ofcoach........ ...................................................................... 120 Race .......................................................................................................... 124 Racial/Ethnic differences. .......................................................... .124 Race ofcoach........ .................................................................... 128 Socioeconomic Status .............................................................................. 130 Socioeconomic differences... . . .. ............................................... 130 Recruiting services. .................................................................... 133 Unofficial visits. . ......................................................................... 13 5 Affording camps and tournaments ............................................... 137 CHAPTER SEVEN < DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................. 144 Assessing the Findings ......................................................................................... 144 How do college coaches describe the context of the recruiting process. 145 Where do coaches locate the athletes they intend to recruit .................... 149 Are there gender, racial/ethnic, and/or sOcioeconomic differences in the recruitment process .................................................................................. 152 Gender .......................................................................................... 152 ix Race .............................................................................................. 155 Socioeconomics ........................................................................... 15 8 How do parents, athletes, and coaches impact the recruitment process. 163 How does the pressure to win impact the recruitment process ................ 165 How are athletes recruited differently in different geographic regions (urban, suburban, rural, location in the United States) ........................... 167 How are athletes recruited differently by sport ........................................ 169 . How do ethical issues, technology, and other social issues and dilemmas impact the recruitment process ................................................................ 170 Ethical issues ................................................................................ 170 Technology .................................................................................. 172 Social issues ................................................................................. 173 Summary of research questions ............................................................... 174 Contributions to the Research Literature ............................................................. 175 Providing Empirical Evidence about the Recruitment Process ............... 175 Sport Status Attainment Model ................................................................ 176 Implications .......................................................................................................... 180 Implications for Athletes and Parents ...................................................... 180 Implications for Coaches ......................................................................... 181 Implications for the NCAA ...................................................................... 183 Limitations ........................................................................................................... 1 85 Future Research Directions .................................................................................. 187 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: Interview Gu1del90 APPENDIX B: The Recruiting Process. ............................................................ 194 APPENDIX C: Interview Consent Form. . .......................................................... 205 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 209 LIST OF TABLES Page TABLE 1. Coach Demographics ..................................................................................... 44 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1. Sport Status Attainment Model ................................................................... P2&de FIGURE 2. 2006-2007 Recruiting Calendar .................................................... 207 FIGURE 3. Examination of Division I Recruiting .......................................................... 50 FIGURE 4. Examination of Division I Recruiting: The Recruiting Process Theme ....... 52 FIGURE 5. Examination of Division I Recruiting: Ethics and Rules Theme ................. 89 FIGURE 6. Examination of Division I Recruiting: Sociocultural Issues and Access Theme .......................................................................... 114 FIGURE 7. Sport Status Attainment Model (revised) ..................................................... 178 xii CHAPTER 1 Introduction Statement of the Problem During the 2004-2005 school year, there were 7,018,709 girls and boys participating in high school athletics across the United States (National Federation of State High School Associations, 2005). Of this number, 4,110,319 of the participants were boys while girls comprised 2,908,390 of the athletes (National Federation of State High School Associations, 2005). This was a record number of participants for both girls and boys in the United States. Judging by these numbers, sports are playing a large part in the lives of America’s youth, and more and more individuals are receiving opportunities to participate in high school athletics. While there has been an increase in participation opportunities at the high school level, the playing field is still not equal for everyone in high school athletics when it comes to being recruited to play at the next level - college. During the 2004-2005 school year there were 389,556 athletes participating in all three divisions of collegiate athletics (166,728 women and 222,838 men) (Vicente, 2006). As a result of limited participation opportunities at the collegiate level, most of the individuals who compete in high school athletics will not continue to play varsity sport in college. The percent of high school students who will participate in intercollegiate athletics varies by sport: 2.9% in men’s basketball, 3.1% in women’s basketball, 5.7% in men’s soccer, 5.8% football, 5.9% in baseball, and12.9% in men’s ice hockey (NCAA, 2006b). The percent of athletes who receive athletic scholarships is even smaller since not everyone on the team is on a scholarship. A study conducted by Paule and Renn (2006) examined the Communities for Equity versus the Michigan High School Athletic Association (MHSAA) court case. This court case centered on the potential changing of the sports seasons for girl’s sports in the state of Michigan. Communities for Equity charged that the MHSAA placed girls’ sports in the nontraditional seasons while the boys’ sports were place in traditional seasons. It is this placement of the sports that Communities for Equity argues constitutes legally inequitable treatment. Through the use of a qualitative methodology, 18 individuals were interviewed about their perceptions of this court case. Through the interviews with students, former high school athletes, collegiate athletes, coaches, and administrators, insight was gained into what the participants believed about this lawsuit. The researchers found that participants had mixed feelings about the repercussions of switching the sports seasons. They felt switching seasons could have negative effects on facilities, coaches, officials, and so forth. On the other hand, almost every participant mentioned that they felt if an athlete was talented then she would get recruited to play collegiate sport. However, while interviewing the participants about the lawsuit an unexpected concept emerged. The participants mentioned that it did not matter when sports were played in terms of recruiting for collegiate athletics because Division I coaches do not recruit athletes for their teams from high school sports teams. Both current and former athletes and coaches stated that AAU and club sports teams are where Division I coaches are searching for athletes to fill their rosters. Coach Joseph, a Division I softball coach, stated that: What I think people don’t understand is that Division I does not recruit out of the high school because it’s not a good evaluation. It’s one great player surrounded by a lot of other kids who are not very good. So if you are going to base a full ride scholarship on something, you want it to be on a good evaluation. So it’s out of the clubs. Basketball recruits out of the clubs. Volleyball recruits out of the club. Softball recruits out of the clubs and on and on and on. It doesn’t mean that we don’t value the high school. Of course we do. And we do whatever we can to help them and support them and value their role in education. But in terms of the actual am I going to recruit Suzy over Janie it’s not going to be based on a high school event. It just isn’t. . .I just know that recruiting in college is primarily done out of the clubs and not in high school. (Paule & Renn, 2006, n.p.) This statement by Coach Joseph, and similar statements from other study participants, suggested in order to be recruited an athlete needs to participate on a club or an Amateur Athletic Union team. The rationale for recruiting athletes from club or AAU teams was that they could see the best players at the highest level of competition. If coaches recruited out of the high schools, a player may appear great because he or she was competing against mediocre competition. If coaches observe AAU or club games and a player appeared great, they felt it was a better assessment of the talent of the athlete. This assertion reinforces that being a member of an AAU or club team increases the possibility of an‘athlete being recruited to play collegiate sport. However, participating on an AAU or club team is not free. Most teams have fees that are required and there is an AAU membership fee for each individual. Further, the participants on these teams have to buy their own equipment and pay for their travel expenses. While participating on these teams could enhance the possibility of being recruited, there is generally a significant cost associated with membership on these teams. For example, it costs athletes on one team in Michigan $350 to be a member of the team. This initial fee pays for five friendship tournaments and the state tournament. In addition, each member of the team had to pay $43 for uniforms and they voted to pay $53 each for warm-ups. The team is able to limit travel expenses, which must be paid by all team members, by traveling to cities within driving distance for day trips (Don Swanson, personal communication, March 21, 2007). Still, athletes participate in these non-school sports team, in part to increase their choices of being recruited to play in college. In spite of the widespread belief held by coaches and others, there is no empirical research that backs up the assertion that being on an AAU or club team will increase the likelihood of being recruited. This study will explore the recruiting process. Importance of Athletics and Issues of Access If what Coach Joseph said is true, and coaches are recruiting primarily out of the club system, then the question becomes who has access to these teams? Why is it important that everyone has access to the opportunity to be recruited to play collegiate athletics and an equal chance of competing for an athletic scholarship? With all of the positive benefits associated with athletic participation (McNeal, 1995; Miller, et. al., 2000; National Women’s Law Center, 1997), one would think that everyone should have access to participate in this arena. However, this is not the case. In a study about extracurricular involvement, McNeal (1998) found that athletics are still dominated by boys and that individuals of higher socioeconomic standing participate in sport at a higher rate than those from average or lower socioeconomic standing. In this case, the individuals receiving all of the positive benefits from sport were the individuals who could afford to participate. This study is in contrast to the popular belief that meritocracy exists in sport. Meritocracy in the United States is the belief that “individuals get out of the system what they put into it. This system is seen as fair because everyone is assumed to have an equal or at least adequate chance to get ahead. Getting ahead is ostensibly based on merit — on being made of the right stuff’ (McNamee & Miller, 2004, p. 197). In essence, working hard, having a positive attitude, and having a basic level of talent will lead any individual to succeed. Meritocracy in sport is a myth that has been passed on for years. McNamee and Miller (2004) suggest “despite the pervasive rhetoric of meritocracy in America, the reality is that merit is only one factor among many that collectively influence who ends up with what” (p. 197). In the United States, children are told that if they work hard they can make their high school athletic team, play sport in college, or become a professional athlete. Kathleen, a former high school athlete, believed that if an athlete is good enough, she will be recruited. She stated, I just think that at this level coaches know about you if you are good enough. Like they are going to see you if you are good enough. And, regardless of the season they are going to come see you play if they want you to play you on their team. (Paule & Renn, 2006, n.p.) Liz, a collegiate athlete, also felt that if an athlete is talented than she will be recruited. Liz felt that, ...the whole issue of I didn't get a fair chance at recruiting really doesn't make much sense to me because if you're good you are going to get recruited. You know what I mean? If you're good, the coaches are going to do whatever they can do to get you. You know even if you sound like you might be going somewhere else they’re still going to keep calling your house. (Paule & Renn, 2006, n.p.) The reality is that this is not always true. An individual can practice every day and be a star in his/her high school, but he or she still might not be recruited by a Division I college. External forces such as access to sport can impact who competes in collegiate athletics and obtain athletic scholarships. Further, the team the individual plays on can also impact if the athlete continues on in his or her athletic careers. Perhaps, athletes need to participate on multiple teams in order to enhance the likelihood that they are seen by college coaches. If this is the case, the issue then becomes who can afford to participate on multiple athletic teams or any team. The issue of access will be a central question throughout this study. Purpose of the Study and Research Questions The purpose of this study was to examine the recruiting practices of NCAA Division I coaches. Where are the coaches locating their athletes? How do Division I coaches recruit the athletes once they have identified the talent? Are there gender differences where coaches are recruiting male and female athletes? Are there differences in recruiting in different regions of the country? This study explored all of these questions. This is an important topic because issues of access to scholarships, college athletics, and a college education may depend on what team an athlete participates on during his or her high school years. 47" JL.. lit; There are over seven million high school students participating in high school athletics in the United States (National Federation of State High School Associations, 2005). A small fraction of these athletes will go on to participate in collegiate athletics. During the 2004 — 2005 academic year, there were 158,676 Division I athletes participating in collegiate sport (Vicente, 2006). From these numbers, it appears that only 2.3% of high school athletes continued on to play collegiate athletics at the Division I level and not all of these athletes will benefit from an athletic scholarship. With so many athletes in high school and so few roster spots in college, athletes hoping to continue their athletic careers in college have to find a way to stand out from the crowd in order to make Division I coaches want to recruit them to their athletic programs. Further, it is essential that coaches make recruiting the best athletes a priority in order to make their programs successful. The recruitment process for athletes at the collegiate level is not as simple as one may think. There are a plethora of NCAA rules and regulations that coaches have to follow. The rules and regulations are different for the various sports at the Division I level (NCAA, 2006a; NCAA, 2006b; NCAA, 2006c; NCAA, 2006d). For example, there are different rules and regulations for football and volleyball. There are different recruiting guidelines that these sports must follow in order to be in compliance with NCAA regulations. While the regulations differ depending on the sport at the Division I level, the rules and regulations are consistent across all sports in the Division II and III 0 levels (NCAA, 2006c; NCAA, 2006f). A detailed discussion of the recruiting regulations is outlined in Appendix B. ..gfl, “5(fi C 1:: at The eligibility requirements that athletes must satisfy have been documented in the literature from the NCAA and other sources. There is also information available about how athletes can increaseltheir chances of being recruited and how coaches recruit athletes are also available to the potentials recruits, their families, and the general public (e.g., Groddy, Roesler, & Yurk, 2005; Hurley, 1999; Klungseth, 2004; Nitardy, 2006). The literature on both of these topics includes a discussion of AAU teams and the importance of being on these teams in order to be recruited. However, there is a noticeable gap in the literature. While the literature discusses NCAA regulations for recruiting and how athletes can help themselves be recruited, no one has researched where and how coaches actually recruit. Do coaches recruit out of the high schools, AAU and club teams, or somewhere else? If coaches, especially Division, I coaches, are recruiting out of the AAU and club system, what will the effects be on high school sports? Have high school sports become obsolete in terms of collegiate recruiting at the Division I level? This study also examined the culture of Division I college recruiting. It is important to understand where athletes are identified for recruitment but it is also necessary to understand what happens after the athletes are initially identified. How do coaches recruit athletes to come to their school? What are their biggest selling points? Do they change their recruiting pitch based on the athlete or the athlete’s parents? Do . coaches recruit the athlete or the parent? How does negative recruiting impact how coaches recruit? These questions will be addressed through the use of a qualitative methodology. Research Questions 1. 2. How do college coaches describe the context of the recruiting process? Where do coaches locate the athletes they intend to recruit? Are there gender, racial/ethnic, and/or socioeconomic differences in the recruitment process? How do parents, athletes, and coaches impact the recruitment process? How does the pressure to win impact the recruitment process? How are athletes recruited differently in different geographic regions (urban, suburban, rural, location in the United States)? ' How are athletes recruited differently by sport? How do ethical issues, technology, and other social issues and dilemmas impact the recruitment process? Research Design A qualitative methodology was used to examine where coaches identify the athletes they will recruit to their institutions and the culture of recruiting. The theoretical framework that guided this study was grounded theory. Since there has not been any research done on this topic, a grounded theory approach was a highly appropriate method to use. As themes emerged from the data, a critical theoretical analysis was used (c. g. gender, race/ethnicity, or socioeconomic status) and applied to data interpretation. Significance of the Study Over seven million high school students are participating in sports at their high schools. A small percentage of these students will actually continue on to participate in collegiate sport, so it is important to understand where coaches are actually recruiting these athletes. This study will identify if it is necessary to be on a club or AAU team in order to be noticed and recruited by Division I coaches. Further, questions relating to access were examined. In addition, an examination of the culture of recruiting was necessary in order to fully understand the recruitment process. With recruiting budgets and the pressure to win increasing, how far will coaches go to identify and recruit the best athletes to their school? This study also examined what goes on after athletes are identified for recruitment. Definitions of Terms Participant is defined in this study as a head or assistant coach from a Division I university. Athlete Sport Program Afiiliation refers to the type of sport program that the athlete is in when the coach identifies him/her for recruitment. This program can be high school, AAU, club, summer camp, and so forth. Division I institutions must “sponsor at least seven sports for men and seven for women (or six for men and eight for women) with two team sports for each gender. Each playing season has to be represented by each gender as well. There are contest and participant minimums for each sport, as well as scheduling criteria” (NCAA, 2005, p. 1). Division I institutions provide athletic scholarships to athletes. Division II institutions are required to “sponsor at least five sports for men and five for women (or four for men and six for women), with two team sports for each gender, and each playing season represented by each gender” (NCAA, 2005, p. 1). Division H institutions provide athletic scholarships to athletes. 10 Division III institutions “have to sponsor at least five sports for men and five for women, with two team sports for each gender, and each playing season represented by each gender” (NCAA, 2005). Division HI institutions do not provide athletic scholarships to athletes. Amateur Athletic Union (AAU) is an organization that promotes amateur sports and physical fitness programs in children and young adults. The AAU strives to provide athletes a place to develop their skills, character, and sportsmanship (Amateur Athletic Union, 2006). These teams require tryouts to become a member of the team. They are competitive and hold national championships. Club sports are sports programs for children and young adults. These programs are not affiliated with the AAU. They are generally competitive and require tryouts to become a member of the team. Examples of club sports programs include the United States Volleyball Association and the United States Gymnastics Federation. Recruiting is defined by the NCAA as “when a college coach calls a student, sends written materials, watches the student practice or play, or makes in-person contact” (Groddy, et. al., 2005, p. 30). A student who is being “recruited by a college is someone who has been called by a coach more than once, someone who has been contacted by a coach off campus, or someone who has taken an official visit to a college” (Groddy, et. al., 2005, p. 30). A contact period is when “a college coach may have in-person contact with a student and/or the student’s parents on or off the college’s campus. The coach may also watch a student play or visit the student’s high school. Students may visit the college 11 campus and coaches may write or telephone students during this period” (Groddy, et. al., 2005, p. 29). A. dead period is the “period of time when a college coach may not have any in- person contact with a student or his or her family. The coach may write or call the student or the student’s parents during this time” (Groddy, et. al., 2005, p. 29). The definition “of a telephone call does not include a facsimile or other electronically transmitted correspondence (e. g., electronic mail, Instant Messenger, facsimile, pages, text messaging). However, all electronically transmitted direct human interaction voice exchange (including videoconferencing and videophones) shall be considered telephone calls” (NCAA, 2006a, p. 2). The evaluation period is when “a college coach may watch a student play or visit the student’s high school. The coach cannot have any in-person contact with the student or the student’s parents away from the college campus. The coach may write or call the student or the student’s parents during this time” (Groddy, et. al., 2005, p. 29). During the quiet period, “the college coach may not have any in-person contact with a student or the student’s parents off the college campus. The coach may not watch the student play or visit the student’s high school during this time. The student and his or her parents may visit a college campus during this time. A coach may write or telephone a student or his or her parents during this time” (Groddy, et. al., 2005, p. 30). An ofiicial visit is “any visit to a college campus by a student and his or her parents paid for by the college” (Groddy, et. al., 2005, p. 30). An unofficial visit is “any visit to a college campus by a student or his or her parents, paid for by the student or the student’s parents. The only expense a student may 12 receive is three complimentary admissions to a home contest” (Groddy, et. al., 2005, p. 31). 13 p 1 n». It. CHAPTER 2 Review of Literature This section gives an overview of intercollegiate athletics and the recruitment process. The literature review begins with a discussion of grounded theory, critical theory, and status attainment. This is followed by an examination of the business surrounding big time athletic programs, a review of athletics and academics, and the graduation rates of collegiate athletes. Next is a discussion of the business surrounding recruiting and athletic scholarships, the importance of collegiate sport, and who has access to this arena. The next section of the review of literature is an examination of the recruitment rules and regulations for all three divisions of NCAA sports, the eligibility requirement for high school athletes to become collegiate athletes, and tips for high school athletes to get themselves recruited will be presented. This is followed by a discussion on how college coaches recruit athletes for their programs. Finally, an explanation of the Amateur Athletic Union (AAU) is presented. This explanation provides a preliminary understanding of the importance of AAU and club teams for recruiting purposes. Since the odds of competing in varsity sport past high school are slim, those who have the desire and the talent to compete at the next level must have knowledge of the recruitment process, the eligibility requirements to participate in collegiate athletics, how coaches identify talent, and what they need to do in order to be noticed by college coaches. 14 fir r” Theoretical Framework Grounded Theory Ground theory is a methodology formulated by Glaser and Strauss (1967) in which concepts and hypotheses are found in the participant’s statements. A grounded theory methodology is comprised of “systematic, yet flexible guidelines for collecting and analyzing qualitative data to construct theories ‘grounded’ in the data themselves” (Charmaz, 2006, p. 2). Glaser and Strauss (1967) believed that theory in sociological studies puts too much emphasis on verifying and testing concepts instead of focusing on discovering the concepts and hypotheses that were within the data. In essence, the data create the theory that is used to analyze the data. The data from the study “form the foundation of our theory and our analysis of these data generates the concepts we construct” (Charmaz, 2006, p. 2). This approach to research values developing theories based on the data rather than deducing hypotheses based on existing theories and uncritically accepting those existing theories (Charmaz, 2006; Richardson, 1999). Generally, grounded theory “combines systematic coding and analysis with theoretical sampling to generate a theory that is integrated, consistent, close to the data, and in a form clear enough to be operationalized for testing in quantitative research” (Conrad, 1978, p. 102). When using a grounded theory, “researchers are encouraged to transcend their preconceptions by seeking out counterexamples and validating their interpretations through peer debriefing” (Richardson, 1999, p. 70). There are three dominant designs in grounded theory research: the systematic procedure, the emerging design, and the constructivist approach. The systematic design 15 “emphasizes the use of data analysis steps of open, axial, and selective coding, and the development of a logic paradigm or a visual picture of the theory generated” (Creswell, 2005, p. 397). The first phase of this design is open coding which involves the researcher forming initial impressions and putting the data into categories and subcategories for analysis. The second phase of the systematic design is axial coding. In this type of coding the researcher “selects one open coding category, positions it at the center of the process being explored (as the core phenomenon), and then relates other categories to it” (Creswell, 2005, p. 398). The researcher also draws a diagram that illustrates the relationship of the each category. The third phase of systematic design is selective coding. This phase involves writing the theory from the interrelationship of the categories that were in the axial coding model (Creswell, 2005). By using all three phases in the systematic research design, the grounded theorist is able to form the procedure that will be used to develop theory. The emerging design in grounded theory research is less rigid than the systematic research design. Glaser (1992) suggests that the theory should emerge from the data rather than using an axial coding method where data are put into preset categories. Glaser (1992) argues that the purpose of grounded theory research is to explain basic social process. Creswell (2005) adds that this social process explanation “involves the constant comparative coding procedures of comparing incident to incident, incident to category, and category to category” (p. 401). Glaser (1992) believed that grounded theory exists on the most abstract conceptual level not the simplest abstract level, theory cannot be forced l6 (IV) . into categories and is grounded in the data, and that theory is not concrete and must be modified if new data arise. Critical Theory Critical theory was developed due to the belief by some scholars that societies were complex organizations and it was not possible to offer a general explanation about social life using existing theory (Kellner, 1990). Instead of focusing on society as a whole, critical theory examines the “diversity, complexity, contradictions, and changes that characterize social life as it is lived and experienced by people who interact with one another and struggle over how to organize their lives together” (Coakley, 2007, p. 41). Further, Kellner (1990) argues that “critical theory frequently shows the relationships between ideas and theoretical positions and their social environment, and thus attempts to contextualize or historicize ideas in terms of their roots within social processes” (p. 21). Critical theory contends “that one needs a theory of society grounded in a theory of capitalism to make (sense of sociohistorical processes and developments because the dynamics of capitalism play such a constitutive role in social life” (Kellner, 1990, p. 22). There are three major assumptions of critical theory. The first assumption is groups and societies are based upon shared values and conflicts of interest. The second assumption is that social life requires continued negotiation, compromise, coercion, and agreement because the values and rules are never final. The third assumption is the values and the social organization itself changes and evolves over a period of time. As the values and organizations change, the balance of power will also shift (Coakley, 2007 ). Critical theory focuses largely on the following topics: 17 (l) the processes through which culture is produced, reproduced, and changed, (2) the ways that power and social inequalities are involved in processes of cultural production, reproduction, and change, and (3) the ideologies that people use as they make sense of the world, form identities, interact with others, and transform the conditions of their lives. (Coakley, 2007, p. 41) In regards to the sociology of sport, critical theorists believe that sport is not only a reflection of society but a place where culture and society can be challenged, reproduced, and produced (Coakley, 2007). For example, sports have been used to challenge racial and gender differences. African Americans have dispelled the myth that their athletic success is due to be naturally superior athletes. They have shown that their success is due to hard work and their intellectual ability. In addition, women have proven that they can excel in sport and in various physical arenas just like the men. Women’s collegiate and professional teams have succeed and gained mainstream media attention. Further, female athletes have created new ideas about femininity and an appropriate body image for women (Coakley, 2007). Through a critical lens, theorists have been able to examine sports in the attempt to understand how people and societies develop and maintain cultural ideologies that are used to explain the world around them. Using critical theory is necessary in order to examine what is happening in society and not accept the status quo. Status Attainment Grounded theory and critical theory are important frameworks that have been used to guide the methodology and analysis of research studies. In addition to these theories, status attainment literature has been used by scholars to direct their research. 18 \ in: {he 13¢ Statuses are “inequalities among social units, such as persons or families, which are more or less institutionalized within the larger social system. These inequalities occur in most societies along a plurality of basic dimensions” (Haller & Portes, 1973, p. 51). Since individuals do not start out life on the same leveled playing field, there is a need to move up on the status ladder. Status attainment can be defined as: A process by which individuals mobilize and invest resources for returns in socioeconomic standings. Resources in this context are defined as valued goods in society, however consensually determined, and values are normative judgments rendered on these goods which in most societies correspond with wealth, status, and power. (Lin, 1999, p. 467) The status attainment process is based on both direct and indirect effects of ascribed and achieved status. Blau and Duncan ( 1967) found that the parental status (ascribed status) and a person’s educational background and/or prior occupational status (achieved status) are two important factors in understanding one’s ultimate attained status, with achieved status being the most important factor. Haller and Portes (1973) argued that two major points of concern in regards to an individual’s status have been the degree to which ascribed factors “at birth determine subsequent levels of achievement and the extent to which initial positions of individuals in the stratification system influence their positions at later points in time” (p. 52). The Wisconsin model is a second model of status attainment. This model was first used to understand male high school student’s educational and occupational aspirations (Sewell, Haller, & Portes, 1969) in 1957. The researchers obtained information from the 19 participants including their parental status, area of residence, and significant others’ influence. In 1964—1965, 89% of the respondents were interviewed to determine their educational and early occupational attainments. These interviews helped the researchers formulate their final conclusions and model. The Wisconsin model states that the socioeconomic status of an individual’s family greatly impacts that person’s educational and occupational attainment. Further, the family's socioeconomic position can limit the significant others that the individual will meet and have in his/her life. In addition to the research studies that have formulated status attainment models, there has been research that has focused on the process of mobilizing social capital to . enhance status attainment. During this process, an individual would use personal contacts, in addition to their education and previous positions, to increase their likelihood of obtaining a job. Lin, Ensel, and Vaughn (1981) conducted the first examination of this model. The study included 400 men from Albany, New York and verified that contact status affected attained status, even after controlling for parental status and educational background. Lin and colleagues confirmed that in terms of status attainment who an individual knows is as important as various ascribed and achieved factors. Coleman (1959) studied adolescent society and found that the popular or “in- crowd” tended to be middle class students with aspirations of attending college. In respect to gaining popularity and status within the high school, Coleman stated that “of things that a boy can do. . .athletic success seems the clearest and most direct way to gain membership in the leading crowd” (1959, p. 337). This was one of the first studies that linked status attainment and sport. 20 Another study involving sport and status attainment revealed that extracurricular activities provide competition and a forum for evaluation for students (Spady, 1970, 1971). These students are able to compete in athletics against one another for recognition and the rewards that are available through sport. The athletes who compete in high school sport may continue their aspirations for sport competition and rewards in college. Thus playing sport is a way for these individuals to obtain a higher status. Further, the skills that individuals receive in sport can translate to status attainment and socioeconomic advantage later in life. I created the sport status attainment model (Figure l) to illustrate how I believe status attainment literature impacts athletics, the recruiting process, and the perceived value placed upon sport program affiliation by athletes and coaches. Personal characteristics and background, including SES, gender, race/ethnicity, geographical location, and an individual’s desired occupational attainment (i.e., professional athletes, teacher, coach, and so forth), influence the individual’s choice of sport and where he or she plays that sport (i.e., high school, club, AAU). Further, the perceived value placed upon the sport program affiliation by coaches can also impact where the athlete plays that sport. The sport an athlete plays can also dictate the sport program affiliation of the athlete. The likelihood of being identified for recruitment can also influence where the athlete plays a sport. In addition, the athletes sport program affiliation can also influence the likelihood of being identified for recruitment by college coaches. According to the sport status attainment model, an athlete’s sporting ability impacts the sport that is played by the athlete. In addition the sport that is played by the athlete can impact the athlete’s sporting ability. The athlete’s sporting ability can impact 21 the athlete’s sport program affiliation. The more skilled the athlete is in his or her sport could impact whether the athlete plays on one athletic team or multiple teams. Finally, the athlete’s ability will also impact the likelihood that the athlete will be identified for college recruitment. The more talented the athlete is on the playing field the higher the likelihood that he or she is identified for recruitment. Figure 1. Sport Status Attainment Model Sporting Ability Sport played by athlete Social Factors SES Gender Child’s Sport Program Aft” 1' t' Race/Ethnicity 1 1a ion Geography \ P . (1 al Likelihood erceive v ue - Desired lace du n of being ' p p0 identified occupational s rt ro r attainment $1.9 gbatn for college 1 ration y recruitment college coaches Intercollegiate Athletics in the United States Intercollegiate athletics in the United States are a central part of the collegiate ' experience for numerous athletes and students. However, all universities’ athletic departments are not the same. The amount of money spent on collegiate athletics each year ranges from “less than $200,000 at some small colleges to over $70 million at a few large universities. Large universities may sponsor ten to 18 varsity sports for men and a 22 similar number for women, whereas small colleges may have only a few varsity sports and many club sports teams” (Coakley, 2007, p. 494). The amount spent on athletics and the number of varsity sports offered are not the only differences between athletic programs. The universities and colleges that offer intercollegiate sports generally belong to either the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) or the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA). The NCAA has over 1000 member school and is the larger of the two national associations. The NAIA has approximately 300 member schools. There are five divisions in the NCAA: Division I—A, Division I-AA, Division 1- AAA, Division II, and Division 111. These divisions differ in level of competition, size of the program, and the rules that govern the programs. Division I schools are the ones with the “big time” athletic programs. They have football or men’s basketball programs that are the centerpiece of their athletic programs and are most likely to create revenue for the athletic department. However, when referring to “big time” athletic programs, “big time” does not refer to a university generating big revenues or profits. In fact, most NCAA Division I football programs regularly lose money and only approximately 60 to 70 programs actually generate a profit (Fulks, 2002; Orszag & Orszag, 2005). In reference to the economics of collegiate sports, Zimbalist (1999) believes that: The most successful programs (perhaps a dozen top schools, such as Michigan, Notre Dame, Florida, Washington, Alabama, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Tennessee) are generating real surpluses year after year. Another group of programs (perhaps two to three dozen schools) generates an occasional surplus when their teams perform well in postseason tournaments. [The remaining bi g- 23 time schools lose money.] Division I-A schools, which support the high expenses of football scholarships, large facilities, recruiting, travel, etc., but have not enjoyed on-field success, can lose large sums of money. (p. 164) College Sports as Big Business The explosion of intercollegiate sport in the United States and the way sport is organized has made it difficult to separate the business aspects of sport from the actual playing field. Collegiate sport has become a large and profitable business. The NCAA received $508,250,000 from television revenue and marketing fees during the 2006-2007 academic year (NCAA, 2006k). This revenue comprised over 90% of the NCAA’s operating revenue during this academic year. Moreover, the total operating revenue for the 2006-2007 academic year was an astonishing $564,000,000 (NCAA, 2006k). Individual sports also have the potential to produce large revenues for their universities. Between the years of 1998 to 2006, ABC paid “the four Bowl Championship Series (BCS) games (football) and the six major Division I-A conferences a total of $930 million” (Eitzen, 2003, p. 115). In addition, each team that played in a BCS game (Sugar, Orange, Fiesta, and Rose Bowls) received between $13 and $17 million (Eitzen, 2003). Benford (2007) argues that “each new technological advancement (from radio to television to cable to the Internet) has expanded the market, revenues, and reach of college sports” (p.13). This increased technology has helped others make millions of dollars from college sports. Media conglomerates, such as CBS, ESPN, and so forth, also receive millions of dollars from advertising revenues that are generated during collegiate sport games (McCormick & McCormick, 2006). It is evident that the NCAA and individual colleges are not the only ones benefiting from the business of collegiate sport. 24 Since collegiate sports have become a large business in the United States, in order to make money: an athletic department must spend money on, for example, increasing the recruiting budget, hiring more fund raisers, improving practice facilities, adding new seating in the stadiums and arenas (especially skyboxes), purchasing the latest equipment, and building expensive new sports annexes with state of the art locker rooms, weight rooms, training rooms, meeting rooms, and offices for the coaches and athletic administrators. (Eitzen, 2003, p. 116) The amount of money that is being poured into athletic departments may be considered astronomical by outsiders. However, universities are doing what they deem necessary in order to be competitive when it comes to recruiting and success on the playing field. Athletics and Academics The business of collegiate sport has also crept into the classroom. Collegiate athletes have to balance being both a student and an athlete during their years of eligibility at their institution. Those individuals who are both students and collegiate athletes sometimes struggle with this dual role. Collegiate athletes, especially those in the so-called revenue producing sports, report feeling pressure to spend a majority of their time and energy on their sport (Coakley, 2007). This pressure may be due to the fact that their scholarship aid is dependent upon their success on the athletic field and not in the classroom. With so much time being spent on athletics, it is not surprising that the athlete’s schoolwork and academic advancement suffer. 25 The athletes in “big-time” intercollegiate athletic programs generally differ from the rest of the student body at the institution. While the characteristics of the athletes vary between sports and programs, the athletes “often come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds than other students, and they often choose different courses and majors. This makes it difficult to compare their academic achievements with the achievements of other students” (Coakley, 2007, p. 498). Adler and Adler (1991, 1999) spent five years traveling, interviewing, observing, and integrating themselves into the lives of male athletes in a big-time intercollegiate sport program. The Adler’s examined how the young athletes made choices regarding school, athletics, and their social lives. The researchers found that male athletes in big time programs had difficulty balancing athletics and being a serious student. The study found that first year male athletes began their academic careers idealistic about balancing sport and academics. They believed that their academic success would contribute to their future occupational success. However, by the second year on the team, the athlete’s mindset changes and they select easier courses and enter into the least challenging majors in order to meet the academic requirements and competing in their sport. Adler and Adler (1991, 1999) also found that academic detachment was encouraged by the subculture on the team. The men on the team were together constantly and they seldom discussed academics, unless it was in a negative manner. Bad test and paper grades were a topic of conversation and banter among the teammates. This assisted in leading the collegiate athletes to view themselves as athletes and not as students. Not all athletes in the Adler and Adler studies experienced academic detachment. There were athletes who found a way to balance their athletic commitment with their 26 academics. These students were generally the ones with strong parental involvement and support in their academic lives. Further, these students created relationships with their non-athlete peers and faculty members, all of whom encouraged their academic success. Graduation Rates Given that academics is not a priority for some collegiate athletes, it is not surprising that the graduation rates for athletes is lower than the general student population in certain sports. However, it is imperative to note that the graduation rates in certain sports, predominantly women’s sports and the non-revenue male sports, are higher than the general student population. The NCAA established a graduation-rate report to monitor and disseminate information about many collegiate athletes graduate within six years of entering the university. The graduation-rate report provides information about all undergraduate students and the collegiate athlete population (NCAA, 2006i). Each university is required to obtain this information and distribute the data to prospective athletes and parents. Football and men’s basketball traditionally have the lowest graduation rates. When examining the cohort of students and athletes that entered college in 1994, only 40% of the scholarship athletes had earned degrees six years after entering college. Further, only 40% of basketball players and 48% of football players had received degrees from their college. Conversely, 54% of the general student body received degrees six years after entering college (Eitzen, 2003). The NCAA’s 2006 report analyzed data from the 1999-2000 cohort of students and identified the graduation rate of the entire undergraduate population and the collegiate athletes. The 2006 report stated that 61% of all students entering college during 27 the 1999-2000 academic year graduated within six years of entering college. In contrast, 63% of collegiate athletes graduated within six years of entering college (NCAA, 2006g). However, these graduation rate numbers do not provide the complete picture. Female athletes graduate at a higher percentage than male athletes, 71% compared to 56% (NCAA, 2006g). There were also differences in the graduation rates of athletes of different ethnicities. White athletes graduated 67% of the athletes while black athletes graduated only 53% (NCAA, 2006g). Further when the intersections of sex and ethnicity are taken into account the differences are even more apparent. Seventy-four percent of white female athletes, 60% of white male athletes, 66% of female black athletes, and 48% of black male athletes graduated within the six year time span. These numbers show that while collegiate athletes have a higher graduation rates than the overall undergraduate student body, there are still major differences within the collegiate athlete population. Female athletes graduate at a higher percentage than male athletes. Further, white athletes graduate at a higher percentage than black athletes. These numbers show that white female athletes have the best chance of graduating from college within six years of entering the university. The Business of Recruiting and Scholarships in Intercollegiate Athletics While academics, maintaining eligibility, and graduation rates are a crucial part of collegiate sport for athletes, recruiting in intercollegiate athletics is an extremely important part of any program for coaches. Coaches want to recruit the best athletes to their programs to help the team win and produce revenue. However, there is another side to recruiting that is not often seen. Coaches and universities award athletic scholarships to 28 athletes in order to lure them to choose that particular university to play for during their college years. The amount of scholarship dollars that are awarded each year is staggering. On the whole, athletes receive more than $1 billion in full or partial scholarships (Eitzen, 2003). In fact, “many schools award more merit-based scholarship money to athletes than all other scholarship students combined. Penn State, for example, spends twice as much on athletic scholarships — $5.5 million annually — as it does on academic aid for its top students” (Eitzen, 2003, p. 109). Access to Athletics While “big time” collegiate sports have become a large focal point of many universities, gaining access into this arena is becoming more difficult. While the number of individuals participating in sport continues to grow, Access to sport is evident in the time and material resource need to engage in many sports and in various formal and informal restrictions to participation. Persons in the upper class have tended to play sports more often because they have the leisure time and the money to engage in such ‘nonproductive’ activities. (Sage, 1998, p. 45) It has also been suggested that “restricted access and class inequalities are widespread in many current and elite amateur sports because of the enormous amounts of money needed for quality competitive experiences and coaching” (Sage, 1998, p. 47). For example, to excel in sports such as golf, tennis, or the other elite, “country club” sports requires private instruction and competition in national tournaments. This requires the financial resources to afford to coaching and travel requirements. Families of lower 29 socioeconomic status would have a hard time meeting all of the financial requirements necessary to excel in these sports and continue participating in the sport at the collegiate level. As a result, those individuals at a lower socioeconomic level have limited access into a wide variety of sport. This limited access does not just limit their participation in these sports but it also limits their abilities to obtain a collegiate athletic scholarship in one of these sports. More and more access to sport is being limited at the high school level as well. Many schools have instituted a pay-to-play system that requires students to pay a fee to participate on their high school athletic team. McNeal (1998) believed that “a pay-to-play system will likely further exacerbate the relative disadvantage already experienced by students of lower socioeconomic standing” (p. 191). Now athletes have to face the dilemma of whether or not they and their families can afford to participate on the high school athletic team (Sage, 1998). McNeal (1998) concluded that access to high school athletics is not equally distributed among the high school population. He found that higher socioeconomic status students participated in sport at a higher rate than the students from an average socioeconomic status background, 66% compared to 56%. Further, McNeal (1998) found that those students from a higher socioeconomic status are 1.3 times more likely to participate in athletics. This is reinforcing the claim that the individuals from wealthier farrrilies have great access to sport at the high school and collegiate level. If students are not participating in sport during their high school years, they will not be recruited to participate in college sport. Since they are not being recruited, they are unable to obtain an athletic scholarship to help advance their education. 30 Since there are students who are struggling to afford to play on their high school teams, how can these individuals be expected to be able to afford access onto AAU or club teams? If they are unable to afford the fees to participate on these teams, will they still get recruited by Division I coaches to play on collegiate sport teams? If it is just those who are able to afford the expensive fees and costs associated with being on an AAU or club team, are college coaches just reproducing the class inequities that exist? If this is true, then the athletes whose families can afford to play for AAU and club teams are receiving the athletic scholarships to college. The athletes from lower socioeconomic backgrounds face not being recruited to play on a college sport team and having to pay for a college education by themselves. The Recruitment Process In the NCAA, there are three divisions in which institutions and their sports . programs belong: Division I, Division II, and Division III. In addition to the definitions provided earlier, these divisions differ in the amount of athletic scholarships they are allowed to provide athletes. Division I institutions are allowed to provide athletic scholarships to their athletes. In fact, there is a minimum financial aid award that institutions must meet; however, there is no maximum amount of financial aid that the school can award to its athletes (Groddy, et. al., 2005; NCAA, 2005). Division II institutions are allowed to provide athletic scholarships to their athletes. However, Division H institutions do have a maximum amount of financial aid that they cannot exceed (Groddy, et. al., 2005; NCAA, 2005). Division III, in contrast to Divisions I and 11, does not provide athletic scholarships to their athletes (Groddy, et. al., 2005; NCAA, 2005). 31 The recruitment process and the regulations that coaches and athletes must abide by vary depending on the sport and division. The NCAA has constructed different recruiting guidelines for Division I men’s basketball, Division I women’s basketball, Division Ifootball, Division I other sports, Division H, and Division III (NCAA, 2006i). The. guidelines for Division I are illustrated in Figure 2. Further discussion of the recruitment process is outlined in Appendix B. Eligibility Requirements Just as there are many rules and regulations for coaches, institutions, and athletes in terms of recruiting, there are a variety of rules and requirements for high school athletes hoping to continue their athletic careers in college. Eligibility rules were created in collegiate sports for a variety of reasons. One of the main reasons for eligibility rules was because “interscholastic sport was formed within the auspices of an educational model with goals, such as the development of cooperation and teamwork, eligibility rules were enacted to help ensure that athletes were enrolled in and making educational progress in classes” (Lumpkin, Stoll, & Beller, 2003, p. 87-88). Prospects have to take and pass core high school courses, maintain a certain grade point average, and take the required standardized tests, such as the ACT or SAT (Groddy, et. al., 2005). These requirements are monitored by the NCAA Initial-Eligibility Clearinghouse. The clearinghouse “evaluates your acaderrric record to determine if you are eligible to participate at a Division I or H college as a freshman student-athlete. (The clearinghouse is not the NCAA, but an organization that performs acaderrric evaluations for the NCAA)” (Groddy, et. al., 2005, p. 13). 32 Core courses are “academic, four-year college preparatory and that meet high- school graduation requirements in one of the following areas: English, mathematics, natural/physical sciences, social science, foreign language, nondoctrinal religion or philosophy” (Groddy, et. al., 2005, p. 29). The requirements for potential collegiate athletes differ based on the division in which the athlete will participate. The requirements to be eligible to compete at the Division I level for the class of 2008 and after are to graduate from high school, earn a minimum grade points average in the required core courses, earn a combined SAT or ACT that match the grade point average and test score sliding scale (Groddy, et. al., 2005). A sliding scale refers to an academic scale based on grade point average and standardized test scores. A prospect must have a minimum grade point average of 2.0. However, “the higher your GPA, the lower your minimum SAT or ACT score can be. For example, a student with a 2.0 GPA must score at least a 1010 on his SAT or an 86 on his ACT. However, a student with a 3.0 GPA is afforded a minimum of a 620 on his SAT or a 52 on his ACT” (National Federation of State High School Associations, n.d., p. 2). The prospect must also complete the following core courses: 4 years of English 3 years of Math (Algebra 1 or higher) 2 years of Natural/Physical Science (minimum 1 lab Science, if offered) 1 year of additional English, Math, or Natural/Physical Science 2 years of Social Science 4 years of additional courses (from any area above, foreign language, or nondoctrinal religion/philosophy). (National Federation of State High School Associations, n.d., p. 1) An athlete will be considered as a qualifier if he or she meets the eligibility requirements outlined by the NCAA. As a qualifier the athlete can practice or compete for their college during this first year of college, receive an athletic scholarship, and play 33 four seasons in the sport as long as collegiate eligibility requirements are met each year (Groddy, et. al., 2005). A nonqualifier does not meet one of the standards for eligibility and as a result cannot compete or practice in their first year of college, cannot receive an athletic scholarship, and can only play three seasons in their sport. A fourth year may be earned for the nonqualifier if he or she has completed 80% of their degree before entering the fifth year of college (Groddy, et. al., 2005). Prospects hoping to participate in Division H college athletics must graduate from high school, earn a 2.0 minimum grade point average in the core courses, and earn a combined SAT score of 820 or an ACT combined score of 68 (Groddy, et. al., 2005). The prospect must also complete the following core courses: 3 years of English 2 years of math (algebra l or higher) 2 years of natural or physical science (including one year of lab science if offered by your high school) 2 extra years of English, math, or natural or physical science 2 years of social science 3 years of core courses (from any category above, or foreign language, nondoctrinal religion or philosophy). (Groddy, et. al., 2005, p. 8) A prospect will be considered a qualifier if all of the above requirements are met. As a qualifier the prospect can practice or compete during the first year of college, be able to receive an athletic scholarship, and play all four seasons of college as long as eligibility is maintained (Groddy, et. al., 2005). A prospect can be considered a partial qualifier if all of the requirements are not met but the athlete has graduated from high school and meets either the combined SAT score of 820 or ACT combined score of 68 or has complete 14 core courses with a rrrinimum 2.0 GPA. As a partial qualifier, the prospect can practice with the team at the home facility during the first year at the college, receive an athletic scholarship, cannot 34 compete during the first year of college, and can have four seasons of playing eligibility as long as the eligibility requirements are maintained (Groddy, et. al., 2005). A prospect will be considered a nonqualifier if the athlete did not graduate from high school. If the athlete graduated from high school but does not have the minimum core grade point average of a 2.0 or the required ACT or SAT scores, he or she will also be considered a nonqualifier (Groddy, et. al., 2005). Division 111 does not use the NCAA-Initial Eligibility Clearinghouse. Athletes who are interested in competing in Division IH athletics must contact the individual schools to learn about their policies regarding financial aid, practice, and competition (Groddy, et. al., 2005). The Business around Recruitment It is important for athletes to know the rules and regulations of recruitment and NCAA eligibility requirements, but that knowledge is useless if athletes do not know how to be recruited. The probability of competing in collegiate athletics is very slim, so it is important to use a variety of tools in order to be noticed and recruited by college coaches. Three of the most important stages in the recruiting process are: (1) being recognized and actively recruited; (2) going on official or unofficial visits to individual campuses; and (3) making the final decisions on where to continue their athletic career (Klungseth, 2004). Since there are limited roster spots on collegiate athletic teams and so many athletes competing for those spots, it is not surprising that there are companies that have emerged that claim to help young athletes get recruited. These recruiting services advertise testimonials from athletes, parents, and coaches to provide proof that their 35 services work. One athlete stated, "Before I enrolled in the Recruit program I didn't get much exposure. I was basically getting overlooked by colleges. Recruit helped me get about 75 coaches respond to my information that was sent to them in the past nine months" (Recruit, 2006, n.p.). The testimonials of the company’s clients are used to make potential clients feel as though they need this service in order to be recruited by a college coach. These businesses charge various fees for their services and assert that they can get an athlete recruited to play collegiate sport and even an athletic scholarship. For example, 5 Star Recruits state their mission is “to provide a state of the art venue for student athletes to market their athletic abilities in pursuit of a college athletic scholarship” (5 Star Recruits, 2007, n.d.). This company offers two different packages for athletes and their families to choose, both starting at $1000. While there are some recruiting services online that do not charge to create a profile page, the services that create the flashy profile pages, brochures, highlight videos, and send mass emails to colleges describing the athlete and their statistics are expensive. While some websites charge a flat fee for their services, there are often hidden charges, such as fees to update the profile pages, which are not included in the initial price. This begs the question, who can afford access to these services? Further, do these recruiting services even work? If these recruiting services truly work, is it just giving those who could afford to pay for college an unfair advantage in obtaining an athletic scholarship? What are these recruiting services really doing? Are these recruiting services just buying attention for those that can afford to pay the fees for the various recruiting packages these companies offer? In essence, these recruiting services act as agents for the 36 individuals who hire them to promote their children. Since having an agent is prohibited by NCAA rules, this appears to be the next best thing. How College Coaches Recruit While it is important for athletes to learn about the recruitment process, ultimately it is the coach of the team that decides who he or she recruits. While there has not been any empirical research on where coaches identify athletes to recruit, there have been individuals who have written about their ideas about where coaches recruit. Collegiate coaches are “expected to recruit the most athletically talented players to provide the university with winning seasons” (Letawsky, Schneider, Pedersen, & Palmer, 2003, p. 605). It is imperative that coaches and athletic departments recruit the best athletes, athletically and academically, to ensure success on the playing field. Nancy Nitardy, a former head swimming coach at Harvard University, Dartmouth College, and Indiana University, is president of College Choices Unlimited, an organization which offers seminars to clubs and high school sports teams on the recruitment process and how to choose a college. Nitardy contends that it is important to understand where coaches go to identify the most talented athletes. According to Nitardy (2006), coaches recruit at championship competitions. State and national championships are one of the first places coaches go to in order to identify talent. The athletes who are on the teams competing for a championship are the best of the best so coaches go to these games to identify athletes that could contribute to their program. Coaches who are interested in an athlete will send him/her a letter and usually a questionnaire following the competition. It is important that athletes send the questionnaire back to the coach to let the coach know that he or she is interested in their program. 37 Coaches also recruit at camps. Coaches frequently “spend the off-season coaching at camps, which gives them the opportunity to interact with and recruit high school athletes. Most college coaches run camps on their respective campuses. If they don’t run their own camp, they probably work at someone else’s” (Nitardy, 2006, p. 1). At these camps, coaches can see athletes play so it is important for prospects to attend camps of the coaches they would like to play for in college. Coaches tend to recruit athletes who show an interest in their program. Writing or calling coaches is a good way for a coach to recognize an athlete. Athletes should let the coach know about their academic achievements, such as grade point average, standardized test scores, and class rank, and their athletic achievements (Nitardy, 2006). Coaches rarely recruit athletes without seeing them perform. Since coaches are not able to see every athlete across the country compete, highlight films of the athlete have become an important recruiting tool. Once a coach is able to view the athlete in action, even if it is on film, he or she will have a better sense of how the athlete will fit into their team (N itardy, 2006). Therefore, it is important that an athlete has access to the technology and equipment to produce a video. This is where recruiting companies may be useful for athletes. Most of these companies have the equipment and technology available to produce highlight videos of the athletes that can be sent to coaches. There are millions of athletes who participate in high school sports. It would be impossible for coaches to know about every great athlete who is participating in their sport. Therefore, recommendations from club coaches, high school coaches, alumni, and other college coaches are useful to gain insight into talented athletes (Nitardy, 2006). 38 Amateur Athletic Union Amateur Athletic Union (AAU) and club sports teams have been cited as a great way to gain coach’s interest and attention in order to be recruited to participate in collegiate sport (Nitardy, 2006). The Amateur Athletic Union is a non-profit, volunteer, sports organization that “is dedicated exclusively to the promotion and development of amateur sports and physical fitness programs” (Amateur Athletic Union, 2006, p. 1). The mission statement of the organization is “to offer amateur sports programs through a volunteer base for all people to have the physical, mental, and moral development of amateur athletes and to promote good sportsmanship and good citizenship” (Amateur Athletic Union, 2006, p. 1). The mission of the AAU is shared by over 500,000 participants and over 50,000 volunteers who devote their time to the organization. Currently, the AAU is divided into 57 different districts, which sanction 34 sports programs, 250 national championships, and over 30,000 age division events (Amateur Athletic Union, 2006). In 1996, the AAU partnered with Walt Disney World and moved their national headquarters to Orlando, Florida. There are over 40 AAU national events that are played at the Disney ’s Wide World of Sports® Complex (Amateur Athletic Union, 2006). These events and tournaments are an ideal place for collegiate coaches to come and scout potential athletes for their program. Often, athletes have to try out for the AAU teams so when coaches come to watch the tournaments, they can be assured they will see a high level of talent participating in the tournament. However, athletes have to pay their own way to these tournaments. 39 Summary The world of intercollegiate athletics is quite complex. Collegiate athletes have to balance both their academics and athletics in order to be successful. Colleges and universities need their athletes to remain academically eligible and be successful on the playing field because the revenue from television and marketing can greatly increase the athletic budget for the school. Further, the exposure from television and marketing contracts can increase the fan base for the university. Big-time athletic programs spend millions of dollars to stay competitive with the other big-time programs. Recruiting budgets are one expense that all programs must allocate money to in order to attract the best athletes to play for their sports teams. While engaging in the process of recruiting athletes, coaches must follow a wide variety of rules set forth by the NCAA. There has been literature that discusses intercollegiate athletics in the United States (Coakley, 2007; Fulks, 2002; Orszag & Orszag, 2005; Zimbalist, 1999), collegiate sports as big business (Benford, 2007; Eitzen, 2003; NCAA, 2006i), athletics and academics (Adler & Adler, 1991, 1999; Coakley, 2007; Eitzen, 2003), access to intercollegiate athletics (McNeal, 1998; Sage, 1998), the recruitment process for potential athletes and coaches (Groddy, et. al., 2005), and the business surrounding collegiate athlete recruitment (Klungseth, 2004). However, there has not been any previous research done on where collegiate coaches identify the talent they recruit for their athletic teams. This is an important aspect of recruiting and research surrounding collegiate athletics because issues of access to collegiate sport and higher education will be illuminated. It is not clear how issues of gender, race, and socioeconomic status may position certain ‘40 students to take advantage of a system where coaches may, in fact, not recruiting extensively out of high school athletics. This study will identify if it is necessary to be on a club or AAU type team in order to be noticed and recruited by Division I coaches. Further, questions relating to access will be examined and an examination of the culture of recruiting is necessary in order to fully understand the recruitment process. 41 CHAPTER 3 Method The purpose of this study was to examine the recruiting practices of NCAA Division I coaches. Further, access to collegiate sport and the culture that exists around recruiting was also investigated. These questions were answered through a qualitative methodology. Research Design A qualitative methodology was employed for this study. This was the best method for this study since a grounded theory approach was utilized. The use of interviews allowed the participants to voice their own beliefs and experiences surrounding recruiting athletes and the culture of recruiting. Grounded theory was used not only as a theoretical framework in this study but as a methodological tool. Grounded theory was used to inform the interview guide. Interviews were employed as the data collection strategy in this study. Coaches were identified and contacted to participate in an interview about the recruitment process. A purposeful sample (Patton, 2002) of Division I head coaches and assistant coaches were be interviewed. Both revenue and non-revenue producing sport coaches were interviewed for this study. Coaches were identified through a purposive sampling technique. The rationale and strength of purposive sampling “derive from the emphasis on in-depth understanding. This leads to selecting inforniation-rich cases for study in depth. Information rich cases are those from which one can learn a great deal about issues of central importance to the research” (Patton, 2002, p. 46). 42 Interviews were conducted until data saturation was reached. Lincoln and Guba (1985) recommend that when considering the sample size, participants should be added “to the point of redundancy. . .In purposeful sampling the size of the sample is determined by informational considerations. If the purpose is to maximize information, the sampling is terminated when no new information is forthcoming from new sampled units; thus redundancy is the primary criterion” (p. 202). In this study, coaches were interviewed until no new information was being presented. Qualitative Methodology Qualitative research is a “research method that involves intensive, long-time observation in a natural setting; precise and detailed recording of what happens in the setting; interpretation and analysis of the data using description, narratives, quotes, charts, and tables” (Thomas & Nelson, 2001, p. 15). Qualitative research was appropriate for this study in order to gain an understanding of the process of athletic recruiting. It is believed that open-ended questions are the most efficient method to achieve this end (Silverrnan, 2001). For this study, interviews were used to gain insight into how coaches recruit their players and the process of Division I athletic recruiting. An interview guide was constructed in order to understand the recruiting practices that these coaches use to recruit the best athletes and the entire process of recruitment (Appendix A). The use of an interview methodology allowed me to explore how the participants learn about potential recruits, where the coaches recruit athletes, and why they choose to recruit at these locations. In addition, questions surrounding the culture of recruiting were examined. 43 Sampling. All head coaches and assistant coaches from Division I teams were eligible to be interviewed in this study. The initial sample consisted of eight coaches selected to allow for maximum variation (Patton, 2002) along the dimensions of sport, athletes’ gender, revenue or non-revenue generating, collegiate athletic conference, and nature of pre-college sport affiliation (e. g., primarily high school, private youth leagues, AAU, etc.). The sports teams in this study were chosen to gain maximum variation in sport, gender of sport, and conference. Further, the sport coached will give insight into the sport program affiliation of the athletes, revenue versus non-revenue sports, sport seasons, and family’s socioeconomic status. Maximum variation is necessary in order to have a broad sample and to avoid “one—sidedness or representation of the topic; variation of questions avoids just one answer. If researchers assume that a variable may influence the data they should implement variations” (Patton, 2002, p. 109). Table 1. Coach Demographics Years of Coaching Coach Name Position Sex Experience Ethnicity Wrestling Coach 1 Head Coach Male 14 White Baseball Coach 1 Head Coach Male 26 White Football Coach 1 Assistant Coach Male 6 White Football Coach 2 Head Coach Male 8 Black Football Coach 3 Assistant Coach Male 16 White Football Coach 4 Head Coach Male 34 White Football Coach 5 Assistant Coach Male 32 White Football Coach 6 Head Coach Female 16 White Gymnastics Coach 1 Head Coach Male 16 White Ice Hockey Coach 1 Head Coach Male 34 White Ice Hockey Coach 2 Head Coach Male 8 White Swimming Coach 1 Assistant Coach Male 18 White Men's Basketball Coach 1 Assistant Coach Male 24 White Men's Basketball Coach 2 Head Coach Male 17 Black Men's Soccer Coach 1 Head Coach Male 8 White Track and Field Coach 1 Assistant Coach Female 19 White Volleyball Coach 1 Head Coach Male 21 White 44 Table 1 (continued). Coach Demographics Volleyball Coach 2 Head Coach Male 23 White Women's Basketball Coach 1 Head Coach Male 23 White Women's Basketball Coach 2 Head Coach Female 16 White Women's Basketball Coach 3 Assistant Coach Female 17 White Women's Basketball Coach 4 Head Coach Male 20 White Women's Basketball Coach 5 Head Coach Male 30 White Women's Soccer Coach 1 Head Coach Male 25 White Women's Soccer Coach 2 Head Coach Male 15 White Participants. In order to understand the recruitment process, 25 Division I head and assistant coaches were interviewed. Of these 25 coaches, there were 18 head coaches and seven assistant coaches from ten different athletic conferences. The coaches in this study were from 19 different universities in California, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina. Twenty-one of the coaches were male while only four were female. Further, all but two of the coaches were Caucasian; the other two coaches were African American. The years of experience among the coaches ranged from six to 34 years as a collegiate coach. In accordance with the purposive sampling technique, the researcher emailed a wide variety of coaches describing the purposive of the study and requesting their participation. The coaches who were chosen to receive the email were either nationally known coaches or coaches whose team was highly ranked within their conference. Coaches at the top of their sport, either nationally or in their conference, were essential for this study because they obviously recruit talented athletes or have a track record of success. Instrumentation. An interview guide was constructed for this study (Appendix A). The questions on the interview guide were open-ended which allowed the participants to 45 give their own opinions and not feel pressure to fit their answers into a certain mold. The questions focused on the process of finding potential recruits, where the recruits are found, the likelihood of coaches to recruit in different venues (e. g., high school events, AAU events, summer camps, and so forth), and the culture of Division I recruiting. The interviews were in depth and examined a wide variety of topics. Data Collection Procedures. Purposive sampling was used in order to gain perspectives of coaches in different sports and different universities. Interviews were conducted at a location convenient for the participant or over the telephone and tape- recorded. A semi-structured format (Silverman, 2001) was used to guide each interview. In this format, a list of questions was developed prior to the interviews to direct the interview but divergence from the interview guide was expected as participant responses directed the interviews and probes were used to gain clarity or further insight into what the participants were saying. Interview Data Analysis. Interviews were transcribed immediately after they concluded. Immediate transcription allowed for a more accurate recording of the data. It also allowed for preliminary analysis of the transcript before conducting the next interview. There were three individuals involved in the data analysis of the transcripts. Triangulation between the research team was used in order” to increase the accuracy and credibility of findings” (Patton, 2002, p. 93). The methodological strategy of triangulating analysts involves “having two or more persons independently analyze the same qualitative data and compared findings” (Patton, 2002, p. 560). This strategy was employed in order to reduce bias. 46 Prior to the members of the research team receiving the transcripts, the transcripts were reviewed by the researcher and any names, university affiliations, and information that could be used to identify the participants were removed. This was done to maintain the confidentiality of the research participants. The transcripts were analyzed in accordance with Patton’s (1990) strategies for data analysis. First, the transcripts were reviewed to ensure that they were complete and there was no missing data. Next, content analysis occurred, which is “the process of identifying, coding, and categorizing the primary patterns in the data” (Patton, 1990, p. 381). Transcripts were coded by writing key words in the margins. Inductive analysis occurred next, which included identifying themes within the transcript and then compare and contrast those themes in the other transcripts. By identifying the themes that were repeated in the transcripts, I was able to determine where the coaches are identifying the athletes they recruit, the recruiting practices they use, and the recruitment process in general. The process of identifying and constructing themes continued until all the raw themes were combined to form the main themes. After sorting through all of the data, two main themes emerged that describe Division I athletic recruiting: ethics and the recruiting process. In summary, a qualitative research design was developed to gain insight into how and where Division I coaches recruit athletes for their athletic teams. The data from the interviews provided insight into where Division I coaches recruit, and why they chose these locations to recruit their athletes. Further, a deeper understanding of the recruiting process and why coaches engage in certain behaviors will be examined through the themes. The perceptions of the participants were carefully examined and provided a vivid 47 account of the Division I intercollegiate athletic recruiting process to the participants of this study. The analysis of the interview transcripts resulted in three main themes, as well as several sub-themes for each of the main themes. The main themes were the recruiting process, ethics and rules, and sociocultural issues and access. 48 CHAPTER 4 The Recruiting Process The purpose of this study was to examine the Division I intercollegiate athletic recruiting process. To explore the collegiate recruiting process, 25 interviews were conducted with various Division I head and assistant coaches from around the country in a wide variety of sports. This chapter, along with the two subsequent chapters, presents the results that emerged from the interview transcripts. Three main themes were identified while analyzing the data: the recruiting process, ethics and rules, and sociocultural issues and access. The higher ordered themes are represented on Figure 3. All of these themes are comprised of various sub-themes. Each theme and the corresponding sub-themes are presented on Figures 4, 5, and 6. 49 Figure 3. Examination of Division I Recruiting Ethics and Rules Sociocultural Issues and Access \ An Examination of Division I Recruiting and the Recruiting Process / The Recruiting Process 50 The Recruiting Process How does a coach identify an athlete that he or she wants to recruit? Once that athlete is identified, what comes next? How does the coach persuade the athlete to select and commit to that school over all of the other schools recruiting the same athlete? In this section of the results, the importance of winning and recruiting, the actual process how and where coaches identify athletes, how the recruiting process has changed and evolved over the years, and the effect of early recruiting on programs. The theme of the recruiting process will be examined through four sub-themes: coaches’ perceptions, how t0..., changes, and decisions. An illustration of this theme can be seen in Figure 4. 51 Figure 4. Examination of Division I Recruiting: The Recruiting Process Theme Ethics and Rules \ Sociocultural Issues and Access ' An Examination of Division I Recruiting and the Recruiting Process / The Recruiting Process A Coaches’ Perceptions How to... 52 Changes Decisions Coaches’ perceptions Well it can take as much time as you want it to take. Being a football coach you can do this job 24/7. I mean you could recruit kids day and night. You could look at film day and night. You could do things in your program uh all the time. You could do it 24/7. — Football Coach 2 The coaches’ perceptions sub-theme provided background information on the recruiting process. Within this theme is a discussion of the pressure that surrounds coaches, as well as, the importance of recruiting athletes to a program. Further, the coaches in the study shared their beliefs on the type of athlete they tried to recruit and the role of academics and the APR in recruiting. Recruiting Pressure. All 25 of the coaches discussed the pressure that surrounds them in their job as either a head or assistant Division I coach. The coaches discussed the pressure to win, the pressure to recruit and recruit well, and the sources of pressure. The first pressure discussed in the interviews was the pressure to win. Coaches were asked to describe the pressure to win at their school in their sport. Women’s Basketball Coach 4, ’a coach of a “mid-major” university, felt that there was a significant amount of pressure to win because he and his staff were responsible for creating a winning program. He stated that: I think there is a considerable amount of pressure because we built the program. I've been here for 18 years and we built the program from the bottom up and there is an expectation. We've been very successful and there's an expectation from year to year that we're going to continue to be successful. So, I'd say there is a lot of pressure on us. Football Coach 3, who coaches a highly successful “mid-major” team, felt that the pressure to win differs depending on the type of school a coach is at (i.e. a Big Time program versus a mid-major), the history of success in that program, and the current status of the team. In terms of the pressure to win, Coach said that: 53 Um, it’s significant there’s no question it’s significant. I think that the, uh, um, the type of school you’re at is going to dictate. . .it’s going to vary from school to school. But, uh, as you lose the pressure mounts and as you win the pressure lessens so to speak. And I just think it depends on the history of the, uh, of the reputation and the history of your program to whether it was a winning program, it’s been a down program, if you show improvement, those type of things you know. All of those play into, I’d say there’s significant pressure regardless of where you are at and it varies from school to school in terms of past history of that program. Women’s Basketball Coach 5 had a different take on the pressure to win. As a coach of a “mid-major” program, his take on the pressure to win differed from his counterparts at Big Time program universities. He believed that: At this level as what is commonly and probably overused term as a mid-major, you know the biggest pressure we all have to win at this level is the pressure we put on ourselves. So I feel immense pressure from myself to win. But as a university obviously we are hire to play for championships but, uh, um, you know as long as you put yourself in position to be successful, you're graduating your kids, your players are representing themselves on and off the floor and are good ambassadors to the university, um, I don't think winning is the end all at the mid— major Division I institution. While there were differing perceptions on the amount of pressure that the coaches had to deal with, each of the coaches in the study acknowledged that they felt pressure to win. Likewise, many of the coaches believed that the pressure to recruit was equal to, if not greater, than the pressure to win. Men’s Basketball Coach 1, who coached in a smaller conference, said the pressure to recruit was incredibly high. He even alluded to the fact that it is important to begin recruiting an athlete as soon as he is identified. He stated that: I mean it’s pretty, pretty competitive you know... because there's no rules until they start their freshman year of high school especially the top twenty kids in the country. Men’s Basketball Coach I felt that by identifying an athlete prior to high school, he could contact that athlete as many times as he wanted to and recruit that athlete hard 54 because there currently are no rules about recruiting an athlete prior to that athlete entering the ninth grade. So, if a coach can identify an athlete early enough, that coach could possibly gain an edge on recruiting the athlete. Most of the coaches interviewed in this study did not focus on recruiting athletes prior to high school and instead chose to speak about the importance of recruiting to the program. For example, Women’s Basketball Coach 5 felt that recruiting is the most important part of an athletic program. He stated that: Well I think that's where successful teams it all begins. I think that without question good players make good teams and uh and that's where the pressure is. It's hard for college coaches. We realize that urn it's an arms race out there to get the best players and uh and uh if you get those players then you have the ability to win championships. Football Coach 1, a “mid-major” program coach, felt similarly to Women’s Basketball Coach 5. He believed if you do not recruit good players, than you are not going to have a good team. In speaking of the importance of recruiting, he believed: It's [recruiting] the name of that game. It's all about the guys, it's not about the x's and 0's. You know what they say, it’s not about the x's and 0's, it’s about the Joe's. So I mean that's the name of the game. You have the best players; you're going to win games. If you have the most talented team in the country just by having the right guys out there you are going to win 8 or 9 games. So naturally the recruiting process is huge. Naturally having the best players is the most important part of it all. Women’s Basketball Coach 1 also felt that it was important to have the most talented players on your team was necessary for success. In fact, he suggested that recruiting the best athletes was the most important factor in winning, even more so than great coaching. He said that: If you don’t take time to recruit well and bring in good players it doesn’t matter how good of a coach you are and how extensive your knowledge of basketball is. If another coach has better players then you then chances are they’re gonna win most of the time, ya know. That’s really how you get it done in recruiting. 55 Finally, Volleyball Coach 2, a coach of a program in a major conference, felt that it was important to recruit the best athletes but it was also important that those athletes have chemistry on the court. She believed that: Recruiting is the back bone because without players you do not have the chemistry; if you don't have the talent to compete but you can have great chemistry you're not going to win. You have to have talent and chemistry in order to win. Gymnastics Coach 1, a coach of a “Big-Time” program, felt that recruiting was a process that had to be dealt with on a daily basis. She described the importance and frequency of the recruitment process. She said: Something is done basically everyday that you are in the office. Or should be done if not you are behind. I would say that it is probably, behind actually coaching your gymnast in the gym, it is the most important aspect of the job. As stated by the coaches, recruiting is the lifeblood of the program. As a result, the coaches feel tremendous pressure to recruit well in order to have success on the playing field. While the coaches admitted that there was pressure to both win and recruit well,‘ the next question becomes what or who is the source of the pressure? The coaches in this study stated that they felt pressure from a variety of sources, including the administration, alumni and boosters, their current players, and fans. The coaches also stated that a great deal of the pressure they felt was the pressure they placed upon themselves. Women’s Basketball Coach 4 believed that the pressure on him was from the administration as well as the players. He felt that: It’s more from the expectation level of the school and, uh, and the administration and my own for that matter. The player's expectation. You know the players come here because we've been successful so there's an expectation that they're going to win too. 56 The history of success in the program has led to an expectation of continued success. While the previous success has most likely led to gaining recruits, it has also led to increased pressure on the coaches. Women’s Basketball Coach I felt that the pressure on him was self-imposed and from the fans, media, and so forth. He believed that there is an expectation on his program to win and if the team loses a few games, the chatter about firing him emerges from external sources. He stated: A lot of coaches would tell you that there is a lot of pressure that comes from within you know from yourself and it’s always been there with me. And you know with this era of chat rooms and radio call in shows and the intemet and all of these things these bring more and more external pressure onto a coach and onto the team because there are just more ways for opinions to be thrown out. When a coach loses three or four in a row people automatically. . .there are people saying he or she should be fired or things like that. In actuality, the only people I have to please are my superiors, the people above me, the athletic director number one. As Women’s Basketball Coach 1 stated, external sources such as fans and alumni can increase the pressure on coaches. Further, it is apparent that when rumors start swirling around coaches concerning job stability and whether the coach should be fired, it can not only affect that coach but the assistants at the school, the current players on the team, and the athletes being recruited to the team. Importance of recruiting. As the coaches illustrated in the recruiting pressure sub- theme, the importance of recruiting to a program cannot be quantified in shear numbers. Recruiting quality athletes to the program is crucial in order to win. Winning is necessary in order to attract new recruits and to keep one’s job. In essence, it is a vicious circle that never ends. 57 Football Coach I believed that recruiting is essential to the program and has to be done diligently in order to be successful. He even offered an interesting example to describe the frequency of recruiting. He remarked that: The old saying that a lot of people have up at schools across the country recruiting is like shaving, if you don't do it every day you will look like a bum. Uh, you do it everyday. In addition to having to recruit daily to keep up with potential recruits, it is important to pay attention to the current team so that team can be successful on the playing field. In order to be able to recruit well, the program needs to be successful and the coach has to demonstrate passion for his team and sport when speaking with the potential recruit and his or her family. For Women’s Basketball Coach 5 he felt this was especially true and stated: Any good coach would tell you that recruiting is the lifeline of the program and, uh, as competitive as we all are as coaches it's a game, it's a game and, uh, hopefully you are passionate about your institution, you're passionate about your job and so you are selling but you are...hopefully we can separate ourselves because we do it at, we do it ethically and we do it honestly and but I love the recruiting game. All of the coaches in this study stated that recruiting well was crucial for the success of their programs. However, in order to recruit hard and compete with other programs in the coaches’ conference or other schools of a similar size and success rate, coaches felt it was necessary to have an adequate recruiting budget and resources. Volleyball Coach 1, a coach whose team is routinely among the best programs in the country, has seen the resources and number of programs increase considerably since he first began coaching. He described the changes as: The number of people who have put resources into the sport has grown dramatically in the last 25 years, and they put resources in it, they expect it, expect, they have more expectations. And so there are a significantly larger 58 number of institutions who recruit, urn, at a high level then there used to be. So the end line is it's more competitive. You go to any gym, I just was out recruiting this weekend, and you know there might be three people on a court that people are looking at, at a certain level and there might be fifteen schools sitting around watching them. So, uh, that's one of the things that's changes the number of, uh, people out there you're competing with has dramatically grown. Since there are more programs out there for athletes to choose from, it is important, if not imperative, that coaches are provided with an adequate recruiting budget to go around their region or the country. Women’s Basketball Coach 4 discussed the growth of recruiting budgets within the past few years. He recalled that: Women’s Basketball Coach 4: You know 20 years ago you were lucky to have $10,000 recruiting budget. Now you know the recruiting budgets can range anywhere from $50,000 to $250,000. Interviewer: Do you feel you have an adequate recruiting budget to find athletes? Women’s Basketball Coach 4: You know our recruiting budget is similar to, to schools in our league. It's not similar to probably to the high major conference schools but it's similar to the schools that are in our league. And when people look at that, that's an administrative people look at it that's how they compare. They just compare people in their own league. They don't look at people outside of the league. In discussing external factors such as resources and recruiting budgets, it would seem logical that all of the resources and recruiting budgets have increased over the years. However, the women’s coaches were the only ones to directly address the increase in these aspects of recruiting. This would make sense because of the fact that Title IX requires equality in all aspects of education. Since many universities have been working to gain Title IX compliance, it would seem logical that the women’s teams have witnessed a greater increase in resources and recruiting budgets since they started with fewer resources and lower recruiting budgets. With the addition of more resources and more teams, the pressure to sign recruits has increased. Further, the challenge to win the recruit has become harder for coaches. 59 However, the coaches appeared to enjoy winning the recruit more now than they did in the past. In contrast, some of the coaches discussed what they disliked about the recruiting process was when they lost a recruit. Women’s Soccer Coach 2, a nationally known coach, discussed what he likes best about the recruiting process. He said: Obviously it’s incredibly thrilling when the athlete calls you up and tells you they’re going to come, uh, that part is also enjoyable. Wrestling Coach 1, whose team has been highly successful, did not just enjoy having athletes commit to the school. He loved the competition involved in recruiting. For him, signing an athlete that no one thought he could get to come to that school was the highlight of the recruiting process and the part he liked the best. He stated: If it's a kid no one thought you had no chance of getting and everybody thought he was going one place then you really hit it off with this kid and a he, you get him to come. Winning the recruit signified the best aspect of the recruiting process for many coaches. In addition to winning the recruit, the increase in resources and potentially the increase in pressure have elevated the recruiting process. The coaches admitted that recruiting was incredibly important and the lifeblood of their program. In fact, most of the coaches could not articulate how important they felt the recruiting process was. The type of athlete. Since recruiting quality athletes was so imperative for coaches and their programs, the coaches spent some time describing the type of athlete they look for when deciding on which athletes to recruit. The coaches had different characteristics that they were looking for in a potential athlete for their team. Men’s Soccer Coach 1, whose team is among the best in the country, looked for toughness in his players. He wanted athletes who would be aggressive on the field and 60 said he would avoid athletes who were not naturally aggressive. He described his thinking in picking athletes as: I often use the term does he wear blue or does he wear pink. When I refer to the color pink you know it is in reference to is be hard, does he get stuck in, and there are a lot players that don't necessarily get stuck in and are those the kind of players even though he's very good but he won't make a tackle to save his life and he wears the color pink. He's not someone I'm going to recruit as much as I would a blue color kinda guy that is a natural, one of his natural qualities is that he loves sticking people. Because at our level you know it's all about your ability to defend and the more players that you can find that are the blue color type oriented players along with being skillful, the better you are and the more these individuals give you to work with um but it's just the way it is. While Men’s Soccer Coach I looked for aggressiveness in the athletes he was going to recruit, Women’s Soccer Coach 2 had three criteria he looked for in his potential athletes. He said: I’ve learned over time is, uh, if you can get to the core of, uh, their athletic being the three most critical qualities are actually their competitive fire, their self discipline, and their self belief. And if you can get a mixture of those three qualities and see that, uh, and mix that in with good character, um, you are off to the races. For Women’s Soccer Coach 2, it was not any one thing that he looked in an athlete. He looked for many internal components that an athlete possessed. Women’s Basketball Coach 5 discussed how he really looks at the athlete as a whole and not just her athletic ability. He stated: One of the things that separates ourselves from some of the other institutions is that we work really hard on the intangibles and one of the things that's important for us is character. So we look at the whole package when we recruit. Basketball brings us into their lives but then we look at the character of the kid and that includes are they competitive in the classroom? Are they a great citizen? Will they represent our program on and off the floor well? And most importantly, will they be good in that locker room? Will they be a good teammate and an unselfish teammate? Someone that puts team ahead of individual accomplishments and we work really hard to find those intangibles through the recruitment process. Watching them having interact with players and coaches when they're playing, on the phone, in person how they treat their family, how, how they're interacting with 61 us. Are they, are they polite? Are they, do they seem like they would be good teammates? And Amanda if there's one secret out there about our program is that we don't offer scholarships to good basketball players. We offer scholarships to great people that happen to be good basketball players. Volleyball Coach 1 felt similarly to Women’s Soccer Coach 2 and Women’s Basketball Coach 5. He viewed trying to figure out the right type of athlete for the program as a puzzle that combined positive character with high athletic ability. He described this process as a: Jigsaw puzzle and you’re looking for the right talents and personalities that fit together. Everybody can’t be the same um what we want, there’s one thing that we want, well I guess there’s probably two, that they’re serious about their education, um, and the second thing, um, I think would be um that they’re interested in, um, making our team be better. Uh, so, you know, their only interest can’t be for the best of our ability to find out and their ability can’t be just about them. They have to be willing to be part of a program that wants a team to win, you know, as much as they want themselves to be successful individually. Volleyball Coach I mentioned that the athlete had to be serious about their education in order to play at his institution, which is a highly successful institution in athletics and acaderrrics. Education and academics was a frequent topic among coaches when describing the recruiting process. Coaches have to be concerned with how athletes are going to perform in the classroom because of the Academic Progress Report (APR). The APR was created by the NCAA as a way to measure academic progress, retention, I and graduation rates for each NCAA program. Failure to maintain a 925 out of 1000 (or 60% graduation success rate) can result in penalties from the NCAA. Therefore it has become increasingly important to recruit athletes who are likely to make progress toward his or her degree, stay at the university, and graduate. 62 Football Coach 3, a coach of a successful “mid-major” team, discussed making sure his athletes were succeeding in the classroom. Subsequently, he was then asked how the APR was affecting recruiting. Interviewer: So you spoke about making sure your athletes are good in the classroom and they’re staying out of trouble, how has the APR affected recruiting? Football Coach 3: Uh, it’s huge. Absolutely huge. Um you know you, you, you get a kid that, um, you doesn’t make it or is at a high school that isn’t quite as challenging as some others then great he makes it. He qualifies NCAA-wise and you kind of wipe your brow in the past, alright we got him in but now seeing that kid through and seeing him graduate is totally different. You may say hey you know what, he might have made it but his academic background for those four years uh really, really indicates to us that he may struggle here. You know and so you’re really looking at the bigger picture when it comes to making sure your kids graduate and that they can do the work here. Just because they’re an NCAA qualifier and he makes it through that doesn’t mean they’re going to be guys that uh that are going to make it for the four or five years that they’re here. So the quality of the education, the type of program they’re coming from and really digesting their transcript has a lot to do with that. Football Coach 3 articulated how the APR has changed the recruiting process and how coaches make decisions about athletes to recruit or extend offers to. However, Women’s Soccer Coach I felt that the APR had not had an affect on his sport. He stated: In women’s soccer I don’t know if women must be smarter then us or what but on the women’s soccer side the academics I can count on one hand probably the number of kids I’ve had to worry about getting admitted here. For the most part, they are very solid academically. The difference between Football Coach 3 and Women’s Soccer Coach 1 was evident throughout many of the interviews. The men’s revenue producing sport teams had witnessed the APR affecting their sports much more so than the coaches of women’s sports. Overall, the coaches believed recruiting was the most important aspect of their jobs and program. They believed if they did not recruit well, they would have a difficult 63 time finding success on the playing field no matter how good of a coach they were. The coaches’ perceptions of the recruiting process involved the pressure they feel to win and recruit well which again were tied into the importance of recruiting for the program. Further, the type of athlete that the coaches recruited varied by coach, but overall most coaches were not concerned solely with the athletes athletic abilities. They wanted young men and women with character, integrity, and the ability to succeed in the classroom and on the playing field. How to... We can identify them usually by their freshmen year. We don’t do a lot with those - freshmen. We’re not allowed to. We’re allowed to send them a media guide and that’s pretty much about it. But we have them in the system and kind of we know where they are and we can go evaluate them. And we can go watCh them play as freshmen and even earlier for that matter but most of the time as freshmen. - Women’s Basketball Coach 1 Obviously you can't consistently contact kids until uh September 1 of their junior year but you are trying to formulate each year those freshman and sophomore databases and at times our level that's the extent of it. There's even other levels that get down to 7th and 8th grade and are trying to contact and already target some really high profile players at that age but you really have to start forming databases when they're freshman and sophomores so you're ready to go September 1 of their junior year and you're really ready to start recruiting them when it's allowed. - Women’s Basketball Coach 5 The how to sub-theme discusses where coaches go to locate athletes, the process of early recruiting, and how coaches sell their university to potential recruits. This is a description of where and how coaches recruit potential athletes to their schools. The coaches discussed why they go to certain places to identify athletes to recruit and avoid or infrequently visit other domains. Further, there is an examination of the process of early recruiting and what coaches think of this phenomenon that has sped up the recruitment process considerably and does not show any signs of slowing down. Identifying athletes. The coaches have said that recruiting the right athletes in terms of athletic ability and character are crucial to the success of their program. Since this appears to be one of the most important parts of their jobs, where do these coaches go to identify athletes that they intend to recruit? Are coaches recruiting athletes out of the high schools, AAU/club teams, summer camps, or somewhere else? An overwhelming majority of the coaches stated that they primarily identified athletes through the AAU and club system or festival/tournament events. While their reasons for going to this site varied somewhat, they all agreed that this was the best arena to view potential athletes. These events have hundreds sometimes thousands of young athletes participating, and coaches can see more athletes at one time. In addition, coaches can maximize their allotted NCAA evaluation days and minimize travel expenses by attending these events. Ice Hockey Coach 1, who recently had a number one ranked team and has coached a championship team in his sport, described the recruiting process and where he and his staff go to identify athletes. He stated that he'sees athletes all the way through the hockey systems but primarily identified the athletes in hockey festivals around the country. Interviewer: So, tell me about the recruitment process? Ice Hockey Coach 1: Well it starts very young. We probably identify kids when they're 14 or 15 years old. Interviewer: Where do you go to identify them at that age? Ice Hockey Coach 1: Well you know for the most part you kind of see them if you know hockey. They're playing minor midget and then major midget, junior hockey, uh, high school hockey, and then the various what they call festivals in hockey around the country. They bring together the best 14 year old kids, the best 15, 16, 17's around the country. Each state has their own internal competition and then becomes a national competition. As much as you can you’re monitoring. 65 Volleyball Coach 1 had a similar thought process as Ice Hockey Coach 1. He was asked about where he primarily recruits and Coach stated through clubs. He went on to explain that he recruited at these locations: For a lot of reasons. One of them is that the tournaments are, you know, 20 to a thousand teams and you can see lots of people in one place. It cuts down on the costs because we don't have to fly you know a large number of different places or travel a large number of places to talk to people, um, or see people, and also it's not during our season. Not only did Volleyball Coach I decide to go to club tournaments in order to see the best athletes play, it was also a way to cut down on travel and avoid having to identify athletes during his season. Similarly, Women’s Soccer Coach 1, a very well-known and successful coach, chose to go to events where he could see the greatest number of players who exhibited a high skill level. Women’s Soccer Coach 1 was very detailed in describing how he identifies athletes that he would like to recruit to play for his university. Not only does he attend Olympic Development Program (ODP) events, but he also is present at National team events. ODP is a type of club system for soccer and an athlete has to be selected for these teams and exhibit a high level of skill in soccer. Likewise, athletes have to be very highly skilled to play in National team events. Women’s Soccer Coach 1 stated: We typically recruit in a couple of different ways. One of the things is we will always be present at any of our National team events, when they bring their National pools of players to look at them at a training camp for selection on a National team that will obviously be a great place to go to watch and identify players because supposedly it’s the best players around the country gathered in one spot. The other way we do it is we go to their youth club tournaments that happen in our sport around the country pretty much all year round. And so we got to identify 10 or 12 of these top tournaments around the country that we go watch the kids, and that’s between that and the national team those two type settings are probably are biggest recruiting names where we are identifying these players. Then we have a program in the summer that we call the Olympic development program where each state has what they call a state team. It’s a selected group of 66 their top players. They go to a camp in the summer to be identified, and hopefully they can be identified as being good enough to move on to our national team. So in the summer you’ve got about a month in July that all the regions in the country are meeting with these Olympic development teams for a week. So that is a good place to go into as well because you identify there some of the top kids in the country. So that is the main way we identify these kids. ' The coaches in this study were very forthcoming about why they decided to attend AAU, club, or tournament events. They wanted to see the greatest number of highly skilled athletes at one time. However, some of the coaches who admitted they recruited out of the AAU and/or club events stated that they did not feel it was necessary in order to be identified for recruitment. Men’s Basketball Coach 1 was one of the coaches who believed it was not necessary to be on an AAU team in order to be identified for recruitment. However, he did think that those who participated in AAU were at an advantage. Interviewer: Do you think it’s necessary for an athlete to participate in an AAU team in order to be identified for recruitment? Men’s Basketball Coach 1: No. But, they, uh, they can get identified in the high schools too, but the AAU guys do get a little bit more exposures sometimes than high schools. Women’s Basketball Coach I agreed with Men’s Basketball Coach 1 on the advantages of being on an AAU team. He stated: I think if you are good, uh, you'll get exposure and you'll get recruited but without question um the, the summer exposure is, is vital to your recruitment. But without question, without question it's not even close. The exposure you get from travel basketball, AAU basketball, summer league basketball is where you get the exposure that you need. Gymnastics Coach 1, a coach at a large, power conference, stated that she did not identify or recruit gymnasts for her team from high school teams. She recruited primarily from private gymnastics clubs and went into detail about the recruitment process for gymnastics. She commented: 67 We do not recruit out of the public high schools that is the first thing you need to know. We recruit out of private gymnastics clubs. Generally how we get that process is by looking at results of gymnastic competitions there are a variety or gymnastics invitational across the country. That is where we look definitely look at what gymnasts have done well and we try to get to those competitions. Now their seasons are identical to ours so it is difficult to get to a lot of those competitions, but if we can we will. We try to identify the athletes and see them in person often. If you see someone you really like you will just remember that name and you can contact them immediately and let them know that you are very interested in them. The coaches who addressed the necessity of being on an AAU or club team appeared to be in agreement that while an athlete does not have to be on an AAU or club team in order to get recruited, there is an advantage to being on these teams. The increase in exposure enhances the likelihood that the athlete will be identified for recruitment. In addition to speaking about AAU and club teams, some of the coaches were just as forthcoming about recruiting out of the high schools. The majority of coaches stated that they did not identify athletes out of the high schools. However, they would go to high school games to follow up with athletes they had identified elsewhere. Volleyball Coach 2, a coach of a major university, was one of the coaches who went to high school games as a way to follow up and show interest to athletes she had previously identified for recruitment. She stated that: Predominantly I identify them through clubs. Then I would go to their high school to give them special attention. So if I saw you at a club, and I was sitting there with all those teams, I was sitting with you there before, and I wanted to make a special impression on you. I will come to your high school to watch you. Men’s Basketball Coach 2 had a similar opinion to Volleyball Coach 2. He commented that: The high school games are more for recruiting and less for identifying. When you go to a high school game you know a lot of them will only have one Division 1 player in that game. And if it’s a great game there will be more then that, but you can’t waste time going to high school games trying to see if there is anyone any 68 good there. When you go to a high school game it’s usually a kid that you know...and that’s called finishing, going to a high school game. Men’s Soccer Coach 1 did not go to high school events to identify athletes. As a coach of a smaller school team, he did not have the resources to go to high school events to evaluate athletes. However, he did say there were certain circumstances where he would attend a high school game. He stated: I try not to go to any high school games. I mean if I do go to a high school game it won't be until after the season in November and that's usually when state cup games are going on. But for the most part by the time the high school season comes around we're pretty much set. We've identified who we want. We've identified who we've been talking to and during the fall season we usually have players coming in during the fall season doing what we call the official visits. So there's really not a need for me to go out and watch high school games even though there are good high school games out there and there are bad high school games out there. Football Coach 5 felt similarly to Men’s Soccer Coach 1 and described the changes in the way that coaches identify and evaluate athletes for football. He did say that he will go to high school games, but they are not his main method of identifying athletes. Football Coach 5 said: We particularly maybe go out twice during the season and try to catch a couple games. I think we have maybe five opportunities to do that but we don’t normally use all of those opportunities to go and evaluate but we might go but really at that time we don’t use that. But back before when I first got into it, that was a way to evaluate those kids. But by that time we’ve already known about those kids. So it’s more just to get reassured about a kid to make sure but a lot of times we’ve already either seen the kid at camp or we’ve got a good idea the, the kid is good enough. After speaking with Football Coach 5, it became evident that even in the sport of football, that does not have club teams; coaches are identifying athletes in places other than high school sport teams. Through all of the interviews, the coaches mentioned identifying athletes for recruitment through a variety of arenas. One of those additional 69 arenas that coaches were identifying athletes in were summer sport camps at the universities. Women’s Soccer Coach 2 was one of the coaches who mentioned using the summer camps that he ran as a tool for identifying potential athletes. He stated that: We, uh, have a soccer camp and we’ve seen some 7th and 8th graders that we think are wonderful players and we will start a file on them. Um, and then by the time they are sophomores, when we think, uh, this is the way they’re going to be, uh, if we think they are elite enough, um, and they have an interest in us, uh, we have no issue with recruiting them by the time they’re sophomores. Track and Field Coach 1, a coach in a “Big-Time” conference, also felt that summer sport camps could be beneficial to athletes because they are being seen by collegiate coaches and gaining exposure. He said: Oh yeah. I think so. In today’s day and age, everything’s all about exposure. You know they’re even hiring agencies to put their name out there and things like that, so anytime they can get out and showcase their abilities and their talents in front of college coaches — it’s going to enhance their chances of, you know, being seen and possibly scholarship down the road. However, not all of the coaches felt that the summer sport camps ran by universities were tools for identifying athletes. Men’s Basketball Coach I believed that the purpose of these camps were not for identifying athletes but for making money and teaching athletes in the community. He said: Really the camps aren't really a vehicle for recruiting athletes in basketball, basketball schools are run to make extra income and you know the kids at a younger age, you know run a service for the community and get some extra income for their staff and things. The differing opinions on the role of university run summer sport camps could make it hard for parents to understand if it is necessary for athletes to attend these camps in order to be identified for recruitment. Throughout all of the interviews, the coaches discussed where they go to identify athletes. The overwhelming majority of them stated. that they primarily look for athletes at club or AAU events. Due to the increased 70 importance placed upon recruiting and signing the best athletes, coaches must go to events where they can see a large amount of highly talented athletes in one place. Club and AAU events are the best place for this. Early recruiting. As a result of the increased emphasis on recruiting the best athletes, coaches have begun identifying athletes earlier and earlier. Even though young athletes cannot make official visits or sign their letters of intent to go to a school until their senior year in high school, coaches are offering athletes scholarships sometimes as early as freshmen in high school. Women’s Basketball Coach I discussed an athlete that will be attending his university soon. She committed extremely early and Women’s Basketball Coach I discussed the process when he stated: Now-a-days we have, we have, uh, student athletes committing sooner and sooner in the process. I mean we have a girl coming in next year as a freshman. She committed geez when did she commit? I want to say two years ago, I mean she committed very, very early, and it’s rare but you still see that people committing in their junior years. And here we are in the spring of their junior year and people are committing right now. Women’s Basketball Coach 2, whose team recently won their conference championship, also remarked that she was identifying athletes earlier, sometimes even before they were in high school. This discussion arose when she was asked about when she starts to identify athletes for recruitment. Interviewer: Yeah, so when do you first start identifying athletes as potential recruits? Women’s Basketball Coach 2: Sometimes as early as eighth grade. Eighth or ninth grade. Interviewer: So how do you see them in eighth or ninth grade? How do you find out about them? Women’s Basketball Coach 2: Um, through um high school coaches, through, urn, we do a lot of reading of newspapers in our five hour radius. We do summer camps and AAU events where we go out in July to see all of the AAU programs. Those are the three main. 71 Volleyball Coach 1 also mentioned that athletes were committing early and stated that the recruitment process did not always start as early as it does now. He discussed the change of time to the early commitments that goes on today. He said: In our sport the biggest one is, uh people for whatever reason are recruiting players at younger and younger and younger ages, fifteen year olds and sixteen year olds verbally committing to school. Is that what we would really want, what I would’ve wanted to have, is that the way I would want it to have happened with my children? The answer is no, unless they’re ready for it, but I would guess most fifteen and sixteen year olds aren’t as mature as they will be, will become in a year or two, won’t know as much. Football Coach 5 has also witnessed the change in the recruitment process timetable. He discussed how essential it is for athletes to be identified early in order to be on collegiate coaches’ radars to be offered a scholarship. He commented: The fact that you have to start so early you have to, you can’t, when I first got in you could have some kids go out and see them in the spring. You have their names then you get to the fall and they play a couple games and you get tapes. Then you offer kids. Then, then you bring them in and you go and they take their official visits. That used to be the way that was but now with camps and things like that and trying to be the first school to offer kids; it has accelerated to where you really have to kinda have a grasp on who you’re interested the semester before they go into their senior year. You should really have an idea on those kids because when you go out in spring you really try to narrow those kids down. Then once you go into the summer that’s it. That’s the thing that’s really changed. If a kid is not on your radar in the summer then it’s hard for that kid to get recruited come fall because we’ve already done all the initial work for that time. While athletes are committing earlier to schools and coaches are racing to offer athletes scholarships before their rival schools, some coaches are wary of pitfalls that may occur as a result of this. There are some dangers in offering athletes scholarships so early in high school. Volleyball Coach 2 illustrated this point when she said: By sophomore year we had all four commitments for this next group in 2008, all committed by sophomore year so what does that do for that kid that is the late developer? What does it do for the kid, what if these kids don't project well? What if they didn't do well? What if they flunk out of school? What if all of a sudden we bring in a kid from some other country, a transfer student who goes 72 into their position? How do you know what's going to happen in your program in two years totally. Now, if you get the cream of the crop they're probably always going to be good for your program. Early recruiting has become the norm in collegiate athletic recruiting. The increased importance placed upon getting the best recruits and winning has been the catalyst for this change. Further, it has continued to progress because if Coach A is doing it then Coach B feels pressure to get out there and early recruit as well. It is a keeping up with the Jones’ mentality and, according to the coaches in this study, it does not appear to be changing any time soon. Selling points: Once athletes have been identified for recruitment and the coaches make contact with that athlete, the job then becomes to sell that university to the athlete and his or her family. The coaches in this study varied on how they tried to sell the university to the athletes. Some coaches stated that they were very consistent with how they sold their school, while other coaches took more of an individualized approach and tailored what they said to each athlete they spoke with during the recruitment process. Women’s Basketball Coach 3, an assistant coach of a “Big-Time” program, was one of the coaches who took a consistent approach. In discussing what she says to recruits and their families, she stated that: Well at [name of university] certainly we'd use the urn academic reputation of the school, where our rankings are from an academic standpoint. We would use, um, the facilities of the university. We would use the winning competitiveness of the program. We would use the staff. Our head coach specifically as well as the rest of our staff. The number of championships. We would use the success of athletics overall at [name of university]. We would use [name of city] as a city, what the city has to offer. We would use what would happen to a student athlete once they graduated. Be it [name of university] alumni. Be it a job opportunities in [name of city]. Um, so you know we kind of take that whole overall scope. 73 Women’s Basketball Coach 3, an assistant coach, truly felt that using a consistent approach with potential athletes was the best way to sell her program and university. In contrast, Volleyball Coach 2, a head coach, thought an individualized approach was the best method. When asked if she said different things to different recruits, she responded: Absolutely. Because different athletes are looking for different things, So if the, urn, if what's important to them is a certain academic area, then obviously we really push that area. If it’s what they like about it is the volleyball program, we make sure they see as much as they can. And it just depends on what their niche rs. Football Coach 1, an assistant coach at a “mid-major” university, was similar to Volleyball Coach 2 in the way he recruited. He used an individualized approach to recruiting athletes. Specifically, he discussed the differences in recruiting a white athlete versus a black athlete when asked if coaches, not necessarily him, recruit athletes different depending on their race. Interviewer: Do you think some coaches would recruit a white athlete different than they would recruit a black athlete? Football Coach 1: In what way? Interviewer: By either telling, highlighting different things about a school or... Football Coach 1: Well certainly. Yeah. I mean I think, you know I'm not saying across the board but I think there are certain things that some white guys. . .it’s probably more of a background than it is a race but uh you know some white guy that's from the suburbs there's certain things about a school that's going to be more um appealing to him than a white guy that's from the middle of the city. Just like, you know, you're going to recruit a black guy from the suburbs and you are going to point out different things to him than you are a black guy from the middle of the city. Interviewer: Like what things would you point out that are different? Football Coach 1: You know, there are some things you point, there's just certain things about your school that might be um, that might be positives for that for whatever they're coming from and I mean I can give specifics its not that I'm avoiding it, just in the sense, um, when you get a kid from the city we're a rural town I mean, you know, you're gonna sit there and you're gonna point out alright well there's that dance club right there, you know, there's that dance club there. Where as you get and this may be slightly racist but I don't know a lot of black guys that like to hunt and fish. I mean that doesn't mean they don't, but you need to ask and if they do then you need to point it out. And you know white guys from 74 the suburbs that likes to hunt and fish, I'm gonna be talking about ‘hey there's great hunting and fishing here’ and I'll take them over to the player's house that have like frickin dear head up here and all that. You know what I mean. Those things I point out to the suburbs that like to do something like that. It’s just more so a matter of interests and so forth. I don't necessarily um think it’s a race thing I mean maybe slightly, um, you knOw like black organizations like African American organizations you're not going to talk about that a lot with a white guy. I mean you might but you know there's an African American guy coming in certainly that's going to be something you talk about. Football Coach 1 was very honest and forthcoming about how he recruited white and black athletes differently. Some of his reasoning for creating an individualized approach for these athletes was admittedly based on race, but it was also based on the geographical area the athlete came from and his interests. Regardless of whether coaches chose to use more of an individualized or consistent approach, most of the coaches stated that they would highlight the campus, the diversity of academic majors, and the support from the athletic department and the university. The coaches of the recent or current National Champion teams in their sport also said that they used that as a recruiting tool. Further, the coaches also promoted former athletes from their university that have gone on to play professional sports. The ability of coaches to identify athletes, recruit those athletes, and sell their program are essential skills for coaches to master in order to run successful athletic programs. As recruiting athletes takes place earlier and earlier, selling the university and program becomes even more important. Coaches need to get the best athletes to their school and admittedly will tell the athletes and their families every single positive thing about that university. Coaches must know how to do this effectively, in order to get the athletes to commit to their school. After all, if they are not good at recruiting and do not know how to do it effectively, they will not last long in their current job. 75 Changes Ah, the biggest difference is when I first started coaching, you know, you would go out and see kids play, you know you start calling kids. Well, first you really didn’t start making phone calls, till you got back to your office in ah, in August. And now, July 1 you ' are making the majority of your phone calls because if you don’t, kids are ’ah, ‘boy they really don’t like me’. And also you are making offers by that time, or offers earlier. You know, it’s just seems to get earlier and earlier if you don’t, you know, offer a kid or make a phone call as soon as July lSt then, you know, they don’t think they like you, or you don’t like them. And they are like, ‘well hey, you know, such and such has been calling me since the first day and that’s why I’m deciding to go.’ - Baseball Coach 1 New rules every year. Changes to existing rules. Increases in technology. Early Recruiting. These are just some of the changes that collegiate coaches have to deal with in their everyday lives. The changes sub-theme discusses the evolving world that collegiate coaches must navigate. In speaking with the coaches, the main changes to the recruitment process that they have witnessed are the timeline for recruiting athletes an increase in technology and the timeline for recruiting athletes. This sub-theme will examine how the coaches feel about these changes and how they have affected the recruitment process. Changes in the recruiting timeline. Similar to the concept of early recruiting, athletes are committing to go to a school earlier than ever before. According to the coaches, there are athletes committing to universities before they are allowed to go on official visits. .Some of the coaches expressed concerns for both their team and the athletes who are committing to universities at such a young age. In speaking about the recruiting process and the constant search to identify the best athletes, Wrestling Coach 1, who has been coaching for more than ten years, stated: It’s a constant cycle of always trying to stay on top of the kids who are already great and looking for some kids who are developing late. 76 Football Coach 5 had similar feelings to Wrestling Coach 1. He also felt that the process has sped up dramatically and recruiting athletes had become the focus of his job. He mentioned that: Kids are committing early. Kids are committing before they actually take their official admission. That’s what we do now, it’s all recruiting. Volleyball Coach 2, a head coach of a “Big-Time” university team, did not just think that the recruiting process has become more rapid. She felt that the process was quickly becoming uncontrollable. She stated: It's out of control because there are freshmen visiting campuses. I'll have a freshmen visiting this summer visiting our campus and I just think it's too young. How does a kid know what they want when they're freshmen they don't even know what they want to major in? How do we know they will succeed academically? They've barely started high school. But yet if they are really athletic everyone is offering them scholarshipsthen, so they are not worried like they get worried if they don't say yes right away because they are thinking that they are going to lose something that they have. Volleyball Coach 2 went on to say that the biggest change in the recruitment pI'OCESS was: The early dates, when I have to go to a tournament and watch freshmen. I have 8th graders on my list already, 8th graders, freshmen, sophomores, I am not spending time on the 18 year old courts anymore, and I'm not spending time on the 17 year old courts, and I am barely spending time on the 16 year old courts. My focus is on all these young girls and I am projecting what they're going to do, and yet they don't even know who they are yet. They don't even drive yet. They haven't even been in driver's education yet. They are barely in high school and they are trying to work through all these things. They are supposed to be this high school person and find your identity there as a maturing young person and you , still haven't figured out who you are. And it is interesting because personalities can change. It is the age of the person you are recruiting and I think it is cut throat and I think people are willing to cheat to do it. Ice Hockey Coach 1 also felt that athletes were committing earlier and as a coach, he felt pressure to offer athletes scholarships at a young age to compete with the other universities. He stated: 77 Ice Hockey Coach 1: They're committing much earlier. Most kids today want an offer when they're still sophomores, the high profile kids. Interviewer: Is that feasible? Is that something that can actual be done? Ice Hockey Coach 1: We do it but it's verbal. It's high risk. Cause they you know zero guarantees that the best 15 year old is going to be the best 18 year old. But they want to know and it’s almost like they're holding us hostage. And there are some schools where the trends that the schools, the schools, the big name schools you know and even the next tier of schools are trying to get in with these young kids and make them offers and give them a time frame to make up their minds. Trying to force bigger schools to use up their scholarship money for that year. You know that's just very much high risk. The coaches in this study did comment on the fact that the timeline for recruiting and offer athletes scholarships has sped up dramatically in the last few years. Since athletes have to be on the coaches’ radar at a younger age than in the past, it is important that the athletes use every tool at their disposal to get their name out to coaches. Likewise, it has become more important for coaches to learn how teenagers communicate and connect with these athletes on their level. Technology. Technological advances have changed the way coaches recruit and stay connected with the athletes they are recruiting. The coaches felt that technology was one of the biggest changes to the recruitment process since they first began coaching. With advances in the intemet, cell phones, and text messaging, coaches felt communicating with athletes has become much quicker and easier. However, the technology advances could also have negative effects on the recruitment process. Women’s Soccer Coach 2, who has coached many national championship contending teams, felt it was necessary to understand the intemet and use it to communicate with recruits. He admittedly is not the most knowledgeable person about how to use the internet; however, he has surrounded himself with assistant coaches who can handle that portion of recruiting. He stated: 78 If you’re not intemet savvy uh since your players are you are going to be in trouble and to be completely honest I’m not, but I have an assistant that does my recruiting. That is and I think it’s important to be able to communicate and connect with the athletes, um, with the latest technology, since that’s the way they connect and communicate. Likewise, Wrestling Coach I believed that the athletes are very visual and the intemet provided coaches with the tools to transmit information to the athletes easily. He felt that: I think kids are very visual today, and I think it is very important that you get as much visual and as much video and all that stuff in front of them. And I think the internet allows you to help with your websites and emails to send them your stuff. The NCAA allows that, so you want that to happen. Women’s Basketball Coach 2, a recent conference champion coach, felt that the intemet and the university’s website were huge recruitment tools. She felt that by having links on the website that would show recruits the campus and what life is like on the team, they would be able to make a personal connection with the athletes. She said: Women’s Basketball Coach 2: Our website to our uh you know the intemet our website is huge right now in the recruiting network. Interviewer: What do you mean by huge? How does it help you? Women’s Basketball Coach 2: Urn, the recruits come to our website to get game updates, to do virtual tours of our campus, of our locker rooms. Some of the bigger programs um they have their coach on there that talks. So you might click on a link to women’s basketball and their head coach is you know welcome to [name of another university] basketball I’d like to show you yada, yada, yada and then they take you through a practice. So you actually get to see the team on the court. They’ll take you to another link that’ll take you to maybe, um, the players going to class, you know. So they they’re able to instead of the recruits just getting snail mail and pictures, um, and we have to send black and white in women’s basketball, so black and white pictures of the university. Now we’re able to go and give visual tours via the intemet. Does that make sense? It’s a huge difference Football Coach 2, a recent conference champion coach, felt that the internet was a necessity in the coaching profession. He felt that using technology such as the internet 79 and text messaging is important in order to keep up with the coaches they are competing against. He stated: I mean, uh, from a kid’s standpoint, all the kids today, you know, I think mail is almost obsolete. I think you know if a kid gets a piece of mail it just goes in the trash because he can get the same thing on his cell phone that someone is going to text him. Uh, you know those type of things. That's how kids communicate, they all communicate that way today. I think you need to be in tune with that you know from a recruiting standpoint. And I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, I just think you have to stay up with the technology that way. As Football Coach 2 eluded, cell phones have become one of the main ways that coaches communicate with athletes. Since athletes are able to call coaches an unlimited number of times according to NCAA rules, the coaches stated that they felt pressure to have their phones on and with them at all times. Women’s Basketball Coach 5 discussed this pressure when he said: You know 10—12 years ago that very few coaches had cell phones. I mean if you can believe that and now coaches can't live without their cell phone. If I don't have my cell phone with me 24/7 by my bed at all hours of the night in case a recruit texts me or calls me I feel like I'm not doing my job. Women’s Basketball Coach 1 also felt that cell phones were an essential part of the recruiting process because he felt that was the way high school students communicate. He believed: It’s (cell phones) become extremely important, that’s become a way of communicating not just with the high school students, but with a lot of people. I mean email and text messaging and especially text messaging with these younger kids, the high school kids, that’s become a way of life for these guys. It’s become a quick and easy way for us to communicate with them. While the NCAA has now banned text messaging, the use of cell phones and the intemet are still integral parts of how coaches communicate with athletes and sell their universities. Since the recruitment process has sped up over the years, these technological 80 tools are helping coaches keep up with the process. In fact, they may be one of the reasons that the process has gotten earlier. Decisions The coach identifies the athlete, begins to recruit that athlete, and gives the athlete and his or her family all of his selling points about the university and the team, now it is time for a decision to be made. Who makes that decision? Does the athlete decide which school to go to or does the parent? Who is better equipped to make this decision since athletes are committing sometimes as young as 14 years old? This is not only a problem for the family but for the coaches who spend countless hours recruiting that athlete. However, the coaches in this study have been recruiting athletes for quite some time and they have learned to read the families and figure out who the decision maker is going to be. On the other hand, these coaches have also had to deal with a wide variety or parents when recruiting athletes. The coaches also believe that their interactions with the parents can impact the athletes and the coaches’ decision to continue recruiting that athlete. Football Coach I believed that it is important to focus the recruiting pitch on the person who is ultimately making the decision on which school to attend. In discussing who does he focus on recruiting, he stated: Football Coach 1: Depends on who is going to make the decision. Interviewer: Generally what do you find, the parents making the decisions or the kids? Football Coach 1: It depends. You gotta judge the kid based upon how influenced he is by the parent. Um, some kids are real, real indifferent and they can be swayed very easy. And if you have any opinionated parent you better get that parent, some kids you can tell that they are like, yeah my dad drives me crazy too, I'm not listening to what he says, if I wanna sign I'm gonna sign. And you recruit that kid and yeah you’re polite and so forth to the parent but you're not you know, sitting there, trying to recruit the parent like you would if you are at the place or you are recruiting a kid where you think the parents can make a big difference. I mean you see both. 81 Women’s Soccer Coach 1 agreed with Football Coach 1. He felt that identifying the decision maker was a skill that coaches developed over time through recruiting athletes. He acknowledged: I think what you find part of the recruiting process and part of the tricks of the trade is you’ve got to really identify who is the one you have to sell cause in some cases it’s the player themselves, some cases its mom and dad, some cases its both, some cases it’s the grandparents, in some cases it’s the club coach. There’s always that key figure ya know that is kinda helping to guide that decision and that’s part of what you’ve got to be as a good recruiter. You’ve got to pick up through meeting and corresponding with these kids who is the one who is going to be making the decision and who you’ve got to sell. Sometimes its mom because mom doesn’t want her daughter to leave home so that’s the one you’ve got to give the comfort level to sometimes it’s the player themselves that’s doing it. Sometimes its dad because he comes to [name of university] and he falls in love with the [name of university] aura and he wants to be around famous people and he sees [name of famous former athlete] on campus or at a football game or whatever you’ve got to find out those important things who’s the right one. Women’s Basketball Coach 4 expanded the pool of potential decision makers to include AAU coaches. He believed that AAU coaches could also influence an athlete to choose one school over another. He thought: The main thing is getting, getting to know who the decision maker is going to be in the process and you know that may be a little bit different depending on what background somebody comes from. If you’re; you’re, if you're from, if you're dealing with a lot of single parent homes then moms 9 times out of 10 going to be the decision maker in the family. A lot of times in those situations the AAU coaches is heavily involved in it. Uh, maybe the high school coach. In a two parent family you know there's the father is probably more involved in the process along with maybe a high school coach or an AAU coach so I mean its, a lot of it depends on you know you have to identify who the decision makers are you have to develop a rapport with the athlete regardless of what their background is. While AAU coaches and the athlete’s other coaches may be involved in the recruitment process, the people who will certainly be involved are the athlete’s parents. The coaches in this study had differing opinions about the role of parents in the 82 recruitment process. Some coaches like having the parents involved in the process, while other coaches detested parental involvement. Women’s Soccer Coach 1 was one of the coaches that believed parents should be involved in the recruitment process. He felt that the athletes may not have the maturity to make the best decision on their own so parental guidance was needed. He said: I am a real big believer that the parents need to be involved and I’m going to say this with a disclaimer, I think the parents have to be involved in the process heavily helping to steer their kids into, something’s they need to be thinking about it because a lot of kids don’t really have the maturity to really know what life is going to bring five years down the road and I think as a parent they have to be on top of being involved in part of the process. So I think it’s important they are involved. The disclaimer part of that is we have recruits on campus too often when they are sitting in the office we have mom and dad wanting to talk to us about how good the player is all the things that the players accomplished and the player just sits there and usually when we start heading down that road I cut mom and dad off. I want to communicate with the player at that point I want to get to know the player because that’s the one I’m going to have the relationship with if she comes to [name of university]. Volleyball Coach 1 had similar feelings about the role of parents. He believed that the level of parental involvement depended on the maturity and preparedness of the athlete. He commented: A lot of kids are prepared to make this uh journey themselves and some aren’t, and so they need their families. You know the only trying moments I think come when kids when the athlete thinks that they’re ready and the family doesn’t and the family can’t back away and let them make the decision. Urn, and there are some people that aren’t ready for that but there are some that are. So I think the farrrilies are heavily involved in a lot of the, a lot of cases. Sometimes they aren’t because they don’t need to be. However, not all of the coaches had the same opinions as Women’s Soccer Coach 1 and Volleyball Coach 1. Football Coach 1 stated his feelings about parents during a discussion about changing the selling points based on what the athlete wants and the family would like to hear. He commented: 83 I mean some dads you talk to them about it, and you start talking academics and they will be like so tell me about your depth chart again, they don't care. They are as in the football side of things as the kid is. Some of them you are talking football and they don't care at all about football, tell me how my son is going to get an education. I mean it's all different; some of the parents bigger into the recruiting then the kids. Some kids are like ah coach I don't really care. . .you know I'm just gonna go up there and wherever I have a lot of fun with the guys I'm gonna go. Whereas the parent wants to get recruited. The parent wants, you know they'll email you every two frickin days and they want you to email them back and communicate with them and tell them how this is going and that is going and that drives you crazy cause you are like, you know, you're not the one being recruited. That drives you crazy cause they think it's almost like they are the ones in the process, like its them and not the kids. Football Coach I discussed his experiences with helpful parents and the parents that are too overbearing and want the coach to recruit them. Ice Hockey Coach 1 also had strong opinions about parents; however, these opinions were mostly negative. He stated: I detest the parent part of recruiting. But I love to go and watch games and watch players and watch them evolve. So I love the game. The negative aspect of recruiting is the overactive parent role. Ice Hockey Coach 1 was not finished discussing the role of parents in the recruitment process. The conversation continued: Interviewer: What role do they play in the recruitment process? Ice Hockey Coach 1: Oh, the parents and families are by their side and kids aren't making decisions on their own anymore. You know they want a guarantee of playing time and they came in here and don't play power play, penalty kills all those things and there's the meddling, the interference, the unhappiness, the threats to pull kids out of school you know. It's ridiculous. Interviewer: So what are parents generally looking for then in the recruitment process? Ice Hockey Coach 1: Well, they want a high profile program. They do want a good level of education but they all, most parents, believe this is a stepping stone for the National Hockey League first as opposed to education first professional hockey second. And, and very few of them are willing to let kids earn their playing time, you know, and be patient. Saying that as a freshman they're not going to play every game, they're not going to play on a power play. They want everything right away. 84 Some coaches, including Ice Hockey Coach 1, felt that parents need to step away and understand that the coach is recruiting their son or daughter and not the parent. Regardless of how the coaches personally felt about parental involvement, all of the coaches understood and stated that it was necessary to figure out who the decision maker is in the family. Once that person is identified by the coach, the coach knows how to gear his or her selling pitch and who to focus attention on. Understanding who the decision maker is is essential in order to land the recruit. Summary The theme, the recruiting process, illustrated that the recruitment process is something coaches have to master to be successful in their jobs. They can perceive different things about the process but they have to know how to recruit successfully, be aware and open to changes that occur, and identify the decision maker in order to land top recruits to enhance their programs. All of the coaches enjoyed the recruitment process. They enjoyed meeting athletes and their families and forming relationships with the athletes they are recruiting. They also enjoyed “winning” the recruit. Coaches enjoyed when a recruit they had spend so much time and resources trying to get to commit to their school, finally verbally commits and signs his or her letter of intent. Not only was that coach getting a great player for his or her team, they had prevented their rival schools from getting that athlete. The coaches also discussed the role of pressure in the recruitment process. All 25 of the coaches stated that they felt pressure to recruit well and win on the playing field. In essence, this pressure was very cyclical. The coaches had to recruit well in order to have the best athletes, which would give them the best chance for success on the playing field. 85 Coaches had to have success onvthe playing field in order to “win” the best recruits. As a result, it is a cycle that continues from year to year. The types of pressure that the coaches experienced varied between the coaches. The coaches in the “Bi g-Time” sport conferences described feeling more external pressure than the coaches of the “mid-major” conferences. The coaches of the “Big- Time” conferences discussed that the pressure to win from the administration, alumni, and boosters was extremely high and they believed that their job was tied to their success on the playing field. On the other hand, the coaches of the “mid-major” conferences did feel pressure but they did not feel the pressure of their job being tied to their team’s performance on the playing field. The stated that they pressure they felt was more internal and was self-induced. In order to find the best recruits in order to have success on the playing field and keep the external sources of pressure happy, coaches go to AAU and club events in order to identify the athletes they intend to recruit. They choose to identify athletes at these events because they could see the greatest number of elite athletes at one time. Further, none of the coaches identified athletes to recruit out of high school sports. They did not feel this arena was a good place to identify elite talent nor was it a good use of their time and allotted recruiting days. Change is inevitable in most jobs and it is important to keep up with the changing times in order to stay ahead or on-par with the competition. In discussing the changes that had occurred to the recruitment process, the coaches overwhelmingly thought the biggest change was the technological advancements, such as the internet and cell phones, that are know essential to the recruitment process. These technological tools have helped in the 86 shift of the recruitment process becoming a 24/7 job. The coaches stated that they felt they had to be available at all times in case one of their big time recruits called. One coach even stated that she was out celebrating her anniversary with her husband but had to take a call from one of her recruits during dinner. While it may have been an inconvenient time for the coach to be answering a phone call, she said she felt it was necessary in order to show the recruit her level of commitment and interest in her. While the coaches discussed what they enjoyed about the recruitment process and the impact technology has had on how they recruit, the coaches also discussed the role of parents in the recruitment process. Over-involved parents seemed to bother many of the coaches. One coach even went as far as to say he “detested” the parent part of recruiting. These over—involved, always there parents can be referred to as “helic0pter parents” (Coburn, 2006). The hands-on approach these parents exhibit can be detrimental to the athlete being recruited. Perhaps unknowingly, parents are angering some coaches by their constant presence and actions. Some of the coaches even remarked that they had eliminated some athletes from their recruiting list based solely upon the actions of his or her parents. Therefore it is crucial for parents to know when to back off during the recruitment process. The first theme, the recruiting process, revealed coaches perceptions of the recruiting process, which included a discussion about the pressure they feel to win and recruit well. Further, the coaches stated how they recruit and where they go to initially identify athletes. The changes that have occurred over years in the recruitment process and how to identify and recruit the “decision maker” and the role of parents were also discussed by the coaches in this study. 87 CHAPTER 5 Ethics and Rules The importance of recruiting talented athletes cannot be understated. While coaches spend countless hours identifying and recruiting athletes, it is necessary that the coaches are aware of the NCAA rules surrounding recruiting. Any deviation from the rules set forth by the NCAA can land the institution, the program, and the coach in trouble and sanctions could be given. However, the trouble with these rules is that coaches can struggle with following the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law. The concept of early recruiting can also be an ethical dilemma for coaches. As the coaches previously stated, how can athletes make correct decisions for their future at the age of 14? Regardless of the number of rules that coaches are required to follow and the ongoing debate surrounding early recruiting, there are coaches that are seeking to gain an edge on the competition when it comes to recruiting. This need to get ahead can lead to negative recruiting. The coaches definitions and beliefs about negative recruiting varied, which illustrates the difficulty in addressing the problem. The theme of ethics and rules will be examined through three sub-themes: rules, early recruiting, and morals. This theme is illustrated in Figure 5. 88 Figure 5. Examination of Division I Recruiting: Ethics and Rules Theme Moral Decisions Rules Early Recruiting W Ethics and Rules Sociocultural Issues and Access \ An Examination of Division I Recruiting and the Recruiting Process The Recruiting Process 89 Rules People want you to win but you know you just got to do it the right way. -Men’s Basketball Coach 1 There are a plethora of rules that Division Icoaches are required to follow. The recruitment process is one area in which the number of rules that the coaches are obligated to follow can seem endless. However, while coaches must follow these rules, some of the coaches understood the necessity for the rules. Volleyball Coach 1, a highly successful coach from a “Big-Time” conference, discussed the rules when he was asked what he thought about the recruitment process. He stated it was: Governed by lots and lots of rules, most of which I think are good rules. Some of them you roll your eyes and wonder, where did this come from? What's the real point of this? But most of them are good because they are intended to help people not attempt to take advantage of student athletes. They're trying, trying not to dominate their time, trying to, um, well anyways there's the rules part of it. For Volleyball Coach 1, the rules, while annoying at times, were there to keep the athlete’s best interests in mind. This sentiment was echoed by other coaches as well. As much as they did not enjoy having to learn new rules each year and ensure that every rule was being followed, they understood the purpose for these rules and believed in the positive side of the rules. Men’s Basketball Coach 2, a coach from a highly successful “mid-major” conference, believed that the number of rules that coaches had to follow was vast. He felt that even though coaches mean well, violations could sometimes happen. He said: I think that there is a letter of the law and spirit of the law, and like I said, I think the rule book is so enormous that most coaches would agree that if you ever went into a program and put it under the microscope then you could find something that would be a secondary violation somewhere. An example, maybe you’re allowed to call a kid twice a week then all of a sudden three times a week because maybe one of your assistants called and you didn’t realize it. So, you have those kinds of things that I think that when you’re dealing with a 400 page rule book you’re 90 going to do something unintentional. You’re gonna do something that doesn’t violate a spirit of a law but does violate a letter of the law. Now in terms of violating the spirit of the law, I think that the law reads with that happening. . .I also think that at the highest level you have a lot of things that go on that are within the letter of the law but not within the spirit of the law. For example, I think you get a lot of families moving, uh, to live near a kids college, uh, um, uh, home and the parents end up with great jobs and so forth and there is no way of saying well you can’t move your family. There is no way of saying you can’t walk into a place of employment and use your sons name or notoriety to your advantage, you know. You can’t legislate against that. But I, that stuff happens and I think people would be surprised at the prestigious places that have that type of thing going on. So, again I think you have everyone at some point violates the letter of the law and I think that there are some places that are still throwbacks, where ya know people deal in cash and making deals in certain pockets and regions and conferences and I also think there are some legal cheating going on and actually those are some of the preferences at some of those well known schools and people would be surprised at doing those things. Men’s Basketball Coach 2 illustrated the trouble with some of the rules. A person can violate the letter of the law but still abide by the spirit of the law. However, he also felt that there are coaches who violate rules on purpose. The level of breaking and pushing the limits of the rules varies between making an extra phone call to giving money to athletes illegally. One of the more minor infractions is detailed by Wrestling Coach 1. He stated: We actually have one camp that is a middle school camp that we're just starting this year. We're hoping to get close to 100 kids and we even make it where we want the elite kids to come. We can't call it an elite camp but we want the best junior high kids from the surrounding states to come and, uh, they can come from as far away as they want ,but we narrowed it down to the best kids that are competing year round to come to it. While the violation discussed by Wrestling Coach 1 was not a major infraction, it can still be looked at as pushing the limits of the rules. Some of the coaches in the study stated they felt pressure to push the limits or break minor rules because “everyone else is doing it.” Volleyball Coach 2 was one of the coaches who felt pressure to push the limits 91 of the rules in order to stay competitive with the other coaches she was recruiting against. She commented that: I had this father called me and the one that was a freshmen again and he goes oh yeah coach, um, I know you talked to our coach about our daughter blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah well and then we’re getting a bunch of letters. . .some of them I’ve gotten 3 or 4 letters from and well that's illegal you're only supposed to get one letter. He goes so I'm not even paying attention to the ones who have only written us once, and I go, you do know it's illegal don't you, to get that second, third, fourth letter don't you, they're not supposed to. So basically you're saying that you're going to pay attention to the people who are cheating and you’re not going to pay attention to the people who are not cheating. So now this father thinks that the person who wrote once is not interested in his daughter and he is going to go with the one who writes three or four times because he doesn't know the rules. While sometimes coaches feel forced into bending the rules of pushing limits, one coach believed that some coaches disregard the rules on purpose. Football Coach 1 believed that: Some of the rules are stupid. And I think a lot of people think they are stupid and probably just choose not to abide by them. Urn, is that right? No, I mean it’s probably wrong but I think that there are, the NCAA has a book literally that big, you can't know every rule. Now the basic rules, certainly you have the ideas, are you allowed to talk to a player, no. Um you know, are you allowed to have a conversation with them in the school? No, do most coaches abide by the rule? No, they don't. I would say mmm I would say a lot of coaches do not abide by certain contact rules as far as you're not supposed to have a conversation. I mean they may not sit down with them for twenty minutes but if they say hello to a kid or get his cell phone number or see him in person to see physically what he looks like and so forth. And that's about it. Football Coach 1, an assistant coach from a “mid-major” team, was vocal about his beliefs about the rules. He felt that some coaches make the conscious decision to ignore the rules set forth by the NCAA and follow their own agenda. He went on to say that he thinks infractions, such as the exchanging of money, are not happening as often as the previously did. Football Coach 1 stated: 92 I don't think there's a lot of teams out there cheating with money anymore. I mean the way people are cheating now is breaking rules, um, not financial based, but break the rules contacting players and so forth. But I think it's probably less so the Ohio State, Michigan, Notre Dame's of the world but more so the teams in the top tier conferences that are kind of at the bottom end of it that are more apt to cheat because they feel like they have to have something to get that top guy where as the Ohio State's, Notre Dame's, and Michigan's of the world. Uh, I mean they're typically getting the top guys because everyone wants to go to the schools. I think it would be more the, what you would call the bottom half of the conferences would be the teams that would be more apt to cheat. Now, as I said before, I don't think there are a lot of teams cheating anymore financially. Plenty are cheating I'm sure there are a lot of teams cheating with bending rules and that, I mean that's part of the game. NCAA puts a lot of rules out there and it's hard to know them all let alone be able to uh, abide by every single one strictly. Men’s Basketball Coach 2 had similar feelings to Football Coach 1. His feelings were revealed when he mentioned the exchange of money in collegiate sports. Interviewer: So do you think that the exchanging of money is still happening on a pretty regular basis on some of the bigger conferences with the bigger program schools Men’s Basketball Coach 2: Uh, yeah I think yes and no. I think it’s in certain pockets I think that there are one or two conferences’ that come to mind. There’s one or two programs here and there, um but I think that that is less though. I think it is less then it was 20 years ago, I think it’s been on the decline but I don’t think it has disappeared from the landscape completely. While Men’s Basketball Coach 2 did believe that the exchange of money was still taking place in his sport, he noted that the number of programs engaging in this type of behavior had decreased over the years. However, not all of the coaches felt that the infractions that occurred were as major as the exchange of money. Volleyball Coach 2, the head coach from a “Big-Time” university, discussed the infractions that she had witnessed. She stated: There are millions of NCAA rules. . .you can't talk to the kids at tournaments, you can't talk to their parents. . .you see people doing it all the time. You see people using more then the AB evaluations you can’t see a kid more then 7 times, but you know they have seen them 10 times. You see people bad mouthing, just so they can get an edge on these kids whether it is correct information or not. 93 She went on to further discuss this problem. She felt that there were ethical issues that needed to be addressed in the recruitment process. Volleyball Coach 2 commented: Like I said, I just think it’s really the back biting and the lying and it might be minor recruiting infractions, but there are so many of them that it is really infuriating because you see people talking to parents across the way there's the thing called previous relationship, and everyone claims to have previous relationships with these people but they don't. And then how are you supposed to go around and track people down and turn them in and when you turn them in and nothing happens to them anyway. And it’s just, I think that there's. . .it’s getting to be just out of whack, you know. I think that, you know, I just think people really go over with the rules. Volleyball Coach 2 illustrated the problem the NCAA has in enforcing all of the rules that it has for coaches to follow. Coaches have devised ways to get around some of the rules and, if the coaches are caught engaging in a minor infraction, there is a sense that there are no repercussions for the actions. The NCAA has rules for a reason. These rules are in place to protect coaches from taking advantage of the young recruits. However, there are coaches who circumvent the rules and engage in minor or major infractions. Further, the coaches who choose to bend or push the limits of the rules have to deal with the potential consequences. In essence, each coach must answer the question, is pushing the limits or breaking the rules ethically okay when it comes to recruiting an athlete? Early Recruiting I think some of the concerns with slowing this recruiting process down is, I think there is a little bit in a trend in across the country, and you see a few more players now transferring. And a lot of coaches feel like they’re transferring because they were pressured into making decisions as juniors or sophomores and were not ready and going to a school and not liking it and leaving. - Women’s Soccer Coach 1 As the coaches in this study stated, early recruiting has become the norm. The coaches admitted that they feel early recruiting is a necessity in order to keep up with 94 everyone else. Football Coach 3, an assistant coach from a “mid-major” program, agreed that early recruiting was important for his program; however, he felt it is more important for the Big Time programs. Interviewer: So why are colleges going to more of the offering kids earlier and earlier? Football Coach 3: Because you all want to get, it’s all on the fast track. It’s just not like the, uh, what’s the word, it’s, uh, trying to think of the right word here. . .it’s what you do now. Um, I don’t have a fancy word for it but, urn, guys want to get their classes, the big boys want to get their classes verbally committed all right so they’re not spending as much time in the fall getting kids committed but they can spend more time wondering how to win football games. And then those guys can start with the verbal commitments already in place. They can start working on the next class and get a jump on the next class. You see what I’m saying? It’s just the age that we’re in. Everything is so much faster. You know we don’t have a lot of kids committing to us in the summer cause we’re a rrrid major school. So we’re working hard on evaluating tape uh during the fall at the same time you’re preparing to win a football game. . .the big boys like Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, the BCS schools have most of their kids verbally committed before the season even starts so there’s not as much pressure on them to intertwine recruiting tape as they’re watching and getting ready for their opponents. Football Coach 3 believed that the process has sped up dramatically over the years. Women’s Soccer Coach I felt similarly to Football Coach 3. As a coach from an incredibly successful “Big Time” program, he expressed his dislike for early recruiting; however, he has to do it in order to keep up with rival schools. He stated: We are now recruiting and identifying freshmen and sophomore players. We are getting verbal commitments from sophomores now. The process has really taken off, and it’s not a process I personally like. I think we need to slow it back down. I think that trying to get a high school sophomore to get any clue on where they want to go to college. They don’t have the maturity to even realize that. But even getting high school sophomores and juniors to commit, it’s a process that I don’t really like but it’s a process that we have to do if were going to keep our program where it is. We started doing it because [name of rival university] was doing it and I am sure there was another 200 schools out there who were doing it because [name of university] was doing it. So I think when you have the top 4 or 5 schools in the country starting to recruit earlier and earlier the filter down effect has gotten out of control in fact were trying to discuss some potential legislations to slow it down, but the process is a little out of control with these early commitments. 95 Even though the process of recruiting and offering athletes scholarships has sped up, there are coaches who believed there were problems with process. Volleyball Coach I felt that this process was detrimental to athletes. She believed: The earlier you commit and if you take that as an indication that they’re maturity level isn’t as developed, that the information that they’ve gathered isn’t as great, which is not necessarily the right conclusion, but it’s certainly something you’d be suspicious of, that they’re not getting everything they need to get in order to make a decision about the place that they’re going to go to, that um when they get, they might get, be impressed by something and how someone dealt with them and jump on it before they find out what it was really about. So, and then later on you get into it and find out it doesn’t fit you. For instance, everybody wants to play, so if you commit when you’re a freshmen and sophomore, looking at the classes, the school and how you might play, when you might play, everybody kind of gets the lay of the land for their career when they’re in the recruiting process, when they’re going to have opportunity to get on the court. Um, but then by the time they get there, two or three years later, by the time they get there three years later everything’s changed. They’ve gotten four transfers to come in all in their position and they never, it’s a dead end. They’re not going to get on the court more than likely. Volleyball Coach 1, a nationally known and successful coach from a “Big-Time” conference, argued that the system that encourages early recruiting is ultimately responsible for the increase in the number of athletes who are transferring because they are unhappy in their current program. Further, it appears that coaches are aware that early recruiting athletes is not the best thing for the athletes, however, coaches keep engaging in the behavior. Is this ethically acceptable? Is it fair for coaches to engage in this type of behavior when they know it hurts athletes? Women’s Soccer Coach 1 also felt that the transfer rate of athletes has increased since early recruiting became standard. He commented that there are growing concerns with this process. He stated: I think some of the concerns with slowing this recruiting process down is I think there is a little bit in a trend in across the country as you see a few more players 96 now transferring and a lot of coaches feel like they’re transferring because they were pressured into making decisions as juniors or sophomores and were not ready and going to a school and not liking it and leaving. The early recruiting process has accelerated to the point where athletes are committing to schools that may or may not be the best place for them. Coaches have become aware of the negative effects because of the increase in athletes transferring to other schools. However, most coaches are not doing anything to stop or slow down the process so athletes can make better decisions. In essence, the coaches are doing what is best for them in this situation and ignoring what is best for the athletes. Ethically, is it okay for coaches to engage in this process? That question still remains to be answered. Moral Decisions And another thing that is very common is lying to kids, ya know. And that is something that is my thing, that is just the one thing I’m not perfect, I don’t make all the great, best decisions. We really try not to lie to kids. We don’t want a kid to come down to school and be disappointed but most people who recruit a kid will tell them hey you’re gonna start, hey you’re gonna do this, you’re gonna do that. They shouldn’t guarantee them that. They can’t guarantee them that but yet they do. And let’s say that I know that they have five other guys and one guy’s great and but yet they’re still telling them hey don’t worry about that you’re gonna start, you’re gonna do great, and that kid buys it. They’ll believe it. - Men’s Basketball Coach 2 The pressure on coaches to win and recruit well can be immense. If coaches recruit a bad class that could translate to losses on the playing field. Losses on the playing field could lead to the coach being fired. Losing his job not only affects that coach and his or her family but that coach’s assistant coaches and support staff. That coach is responsible for many other people’s jobs. Perhaps knowing that they are responsible for so many other individuals causes coaches to look out for their own interests and engage in behaviors that they otherwise would not. 97 Self-interest. According to the coaches, recruiting can be done all day, every day. If the coaches are spending that much time recruiting athletes, there must be something about it they enjoy. Many of the coaches discussed that they truly enjoy the relationship part of recruiting. However, they also believed that it was necessary for them to form these relationships in order to get the athletes to choose their school over all of the other schools recruiting the athlete. Therefore, it was in the coaches best interests to make the athletes and the athlete’s parents like them and feel connected. Women’s Basketball Coach 1 believed the best part of the recruiting process was forming relationships with the potential athletes. He discussed the process of developing the relationship with the athlete and how that relationship can translate into the athlete signing with the coach. He said: Well, I enjoy meeting the recruits. When you just get a chance to watch them and then you finally get to meet them and their parents, that’s the fun part of the process. And there are some recruits that you really get to click with, that you really hit it off with, and it’s enjoyable to develop the relationship that way. The best part about recruiting is when the recruit says yes. When it’s a recruit that you want and you’ve worked very hard to nurture a relationship and they come up on campus and there’s kind of a mutual, um, um, ya know, just a relationship grows from that and they like your campus and they like your basketball program and they see themselves as a good fit and visa versa . And so when it all works like that, ya know, it’s a great feeling especially when you know it’s a good player who can help you be successful. Men’s Soccer Coach 1 also enjoyed the process of building relationships and communicating with the athlete. He believed that forming relationships and trust between himself and the athlete was essential. He felt: The only guarantee I have in the recruiting process is the number of people I communicate with and the quality relationship that I develop, uh, within those conversations, where we develop some form of trust and interest where the player we are recruiting is interested enough to come visit us. And then we can show him around the campus and hope that that kinda confirms his interests and reaffirrns 98 why he came here and hope that he wants to come as a result of the time he and I have spent developing a relationship. Likewise, Football Coach I felt that athletes generally made decisions based on the experiences they had with the coach, on the campus, and so forth. He believed that: Kids are making their decision based upon the feel of a coach and whether or not they met a cute girl on campus. I mean let’s be honest. You know they're not. . .75+% of kids you know they don't have a 20 point checklist and they are making the one that had 17 points checked off over the one that had 15 I mean, it's a gut thing. That's why recruiting is all about building a relationship to the point where that kid can't say no to you. Overall, the coaches enjoyed getting to meet new people and form relationships, but they were also acutely aware of how these relationships would benefit them in the future. So, perhaps the coaches enjoyed forming relationships because they knew it would help them land the recruit. Forming relationships were not the only behaviors that coaches engaged in for their own benefit. Football Coach 3 discussed how he has dealt with other coaches who regularly pressure athletes into committing to their school before they have had a chance to visit other schools. He believed: Football Coach 3: The other thing that bothers me is he’s going to go visit school A and then he’s going to visit your school the next week. And he’s been offered by school A and he’s been offered by you. He’s going to school A and the next week he’s going to yours. He goes to school A. He sits down with the coach. He tells coach at school A I’m going to go visit school B. And even though the coach is trying to squeeze him and tell him we really want your commitment, can you tell us on Sunday at the end of the weekend if you are coming? He says I really like the place but I got to visit school B. And the coach at school A tells him okay fine, I’ll let you go to school B to help your decision process. So the kid leaves thinking he can come to school B which is us. And in the middle of the week or even on a Thursday, then school A calls him back and says look, um, we got another kid coming in this weekend and we’re going to need to know before you go to school B whether you are coming or not and if you decide to go to school B that’s fine but I can’t guarantee your scholarship’s going to be available after the weekend. So now the kid’s getting squeezed. So now he’s thinking well if I go to school B I’m going to lose my chance to go to school A so they’re squeezing him. 99 Instructor: Does that happen a lot? Football Coach 3: Oh my god. Does it happen? We don’t do it here. So now the kid really likes school B and he doesn’t like, he doesn’t like that if he doesn’t like that he’s going to know that. If you squeeze a kid that doesn’t like to be squeezed he’ll tell you see you later I’m going to go to B anyways. So you better understand how to work a kid. Well, but I’ve had kids that have called me up and said I’m not coming coach, I’m going to school A. And that really pisses me off because he didn’t get a chance to even see if we’re a better school or not for him. That’s the squeeze tactic and that’s not good for a kid. That kid should be able to go to B and A and make his decision. But there’s people will squeeze you to the point where they’ll give you 24 hours. You leave on Sunday and let us know Monday. And they say because we’ve got another kid coming in next weekend that plays your position and he wants to commit to us so if you leave that’s fine but this kid is coming in and if he comes in and wants to commit we’re going to end up giving him the scholarship. You’ve got to think twice whether you want to go anywhere if you really like A. And then some of them will let you go and expect a decision after you went to school B. I just don’t like those tactics. I really don’t. The other tactic I don’t like is I am committed verbally to school A and I recruit a kid, verbally now. So that means that mom and dad are okay with school A, the kids okay with school A, and the coach is okay with school A. And the coach, and the mom and dad, and the kid feel that school is where they want him to go and they’re all on a united front. When they do that they have to tell everybody else hey we’re committed to school A. We’re done. And ethically if. . .the other schools should stop recruiting. That’s what we do here. Football Coach 3 truly believed that this practice of “squeezing” athletes only benefited the coach, ignored what was best for the athlete, and was completely unfair and morally wrong. He felt that it was important for athletes to have the chance to visit other schools in order to figure out the best place for them. Another practice that takes the coach’s needs and interests into account over the athletes’ is scholarship offerings. Ice Hockey Coach 1, a former National Champion coach, discussed how he sometimes offers athletes a scholarship to the university; however, he leaves the year of initial admittance into the school up in the air. As a result, the athlete does not know when he will be starting school. He stated: Ice Hockey Coach 1: I'll say okay I'll give you a scholarship but I can't tell you what year it's for. It might be for '07. It might be for '08. Depending on what our 100 needs are. So if you commit to me you don't know for sure what year you are coming. Interviewer: Does that happen a lot? Ice Hockey Coach 1: It's happening a lot now. Because of the younger age turning pro. Interviewer: Is that fair to the athlete? Ice Hockey Coach 1: (Sigh) Depends on how bad they want to go to a certain school. You know what I mean. We have to do and it's happening all over college hockey now. And for the parent and the kid it's a scholarship guarantee. You know and what's different about hockey is that they don't all come after grade 12. Some will go play a year after grade 12 you know. You can't go, very rarely can you go straight from high school to major college hockey. You got to play a development year at a higher league so um that creates a lot of uncertainty as to you know when's he coming? When's he ready? That type of just to, I don't think it's as healthy as it used to be. In the end it still works but uh because of the way these kids are leaving and turning pro it's just really made it tough. This process clearly benefits the coach more than the athlete. However, Ice Hockey Coach I attempted to justify it by saying that he believed this practice was fair. He felt that if an athlete wanted to go to that school and play hockey there, they would wait. But if the coach gives them a scholarship for a year after they finish high school, what do they do during that year of not going to college and playing hockey? Why should they have to put their dreams and goals on hold? While the recruitment process centers around athletes, but the coaches definitely look out for their best interests. Whether it is forming relationships, pressuring athletes to sign with his or her school, or deciding an athlete’s scholarship, the coaches consistently keep their interests and what is best for their program in the forefront and center of their decisions. Negative recruiting. Negative recruiting is a very controversial topic that exists within recruiting. Negative recruiting is the practice of attempting to persuade recruits to choose one school over another by using stereotypes, hearsay, and personal attacks against the other school. Part of the controversy may exist because, after speaking with 101 the coaches, it appears that everyone has a different perception, belief, and definition of negative recruiting. Women’s Basketball Coach 4, the head coach of a “mid-major” program, discussed his definition of negative recruiting. He stated: My definition of negative recruiting is uh an opinion, an opinion of a situation not based in fact. Um, so if I, I think if something is factual and if you're going to talk about another school, which we don't do very often, but if let's say your going to compare, let's say somebody is, let's say a particular student-athlete is, is, is down to three schools and you're going to compare the programs at three schools as long as the information you are providing is factual, I do not think that is negative recruiting. Um, if it is opinion based on no fact and that's all it is, is opinion, or if it is innuendo or if it's you know rumor or any of that stuff than I think that borders on being unethical and I, uh, we don't get involved in that. While Women’s Basketball Coach 4 believed that negative recruiting is when another coach makes untrue statements about the school or coach, there were other coaches that felt negative recruiting was not just about making false statements. Other coaches felt that simply talking about another school or program constituted negative recruiting. Then there were coaches who believed as long as what they were saying was factual, their statements did not amount to negative recruiting. Football Coach 1, an assistant coach for a “mid-major” university, was one of those coaches. He discussed this topic when asked if he could discuss any stories he had heard about negative recruiting. He commented: Football Coach 1: Yeah, that's when they bash the school. Interviewer: What do they bash about it? Football Coach 1: Whatever they can, you know, and I think there's a difference between negative recruiting and actual recruiting. You know if I'm recruiting against another school in our conference, it's a commuter school. Other than that I have to say hey you know you been down there hanging out have you seen campus a lot? And I'll ask them some questions like that. I don't think that's necessarily negative. That's, that's, you know, my opinion, asking legitimate 102 things about the school. To say that's a shitty place or something like you know like coaches, coach is a real jerk. I've heard he's a completely different guy once you get to campus or those kind of things. You know that, coach is really hard on them or that's a crappy education or something like that, you know, I think that's, urn, not the right way of going, or there never gonna win. They are a garbage program, stuff like that, that's hard. Football Coach I tried to differentiate between what he thought was negative recruiting and actual recruiting. The other coaches in this study also had thoughts and opinions about negative recruiting. These opinions varied from negative recruiting being completely wrong to it happening because of the competition to win a recruit. Wrestling Coach 1, the head coach of one of the top wrestling programs in the nation, believed that coaches should speak about their own university and not speak badly about other schools. He said: My philosophy is you. . .if I‘m up against this school B then I'm only gonna talk about my school, which is school A, and say this is what we have to offer. These are the great things at the [name of university] and this and that and, uh, I know your being recruited by these other schools, 1 will only say good things. They're all good schools, so you can't really make a mistake. But you have other coaches saying why would you want to go there? They have this guy there and that guy there and they're over recruiting and you know they'll say negative things and that's just something we've never done. Men’s Soccer Coach I felt similarly to Wrestling Coach 1. He believed that if a coach has to resort to negative recruiting it reflects poorly upon that coach and his or her program. Men’s Soccer Coach I commented: When you have to resort to negative recruiting, it doesn't bode well or speak well of the individual that feels he has to resort to that. It is something that has been going on not just among college programs but every sport and aspect of college sports there have been some degree or incidences of negative recruiting. Women’s Basketball Coach 2, the head coach of a conference championship team, felt that coaches do not blatantly speak negatively about other programs. She felt that coaches do it more subtly when speaking to recruits and their families. She stated: 103 I think most people when they’re negatively recruiting they’re not direct. They will say things um sarcastically about other schools and acting like they’re just poking fun but anytime you say anything about another school that you are recruiting against, um, it’s not your role to sell another school, um, whether it’s positive or negative. You’re responsibility as a college recruiter is to sell [name of university], um, and it’s, you know, whoever you’re competition is it’s their responsibility to sell their own school. So, a lot of times when coaches are giving student athletes advice, prospective student athletes advice, um, you know, I think its, it starts to cross the line, um, into as I said sometimes it’s the sarcasm that they want to get their point across of sometimes the negative. Or and sometimes it’s not even a negative it’s difference that doesn’t fit that student athlete. Men’s Basketball Coach 2 believed that negative recruiting was the result of the competition that goes on between coaches when they are trying to win the same recruit. He felt it was especially negative when coaches who play against each other on a regular basis were competing for the same recruit. He said: Let me put it this way, you asked about the pressure in recruiting when you have these huge rivals in coaching like ya know really disliking each other, uh, you know when they have tense emotional rival that usually has more to do with recruiting then it does the game. Uh, in the games are decided are within 40 minutes on the court but these recruiting battles are decided over years and also have everything to do with who wins those 40 minute battles. Oh it is very brutal. We actually have it good out here in [name of city]. I could name and I won’t do it and there are certain schools that if they are recruiting against each other they will just kill each other. I mean there really is hatred between those programs and it is because of how they have to recruit against each other constantly. The coaches did not just speak abstractly about negative recruiting. The coaches were candid and described negative recruiting topics and incidents of negative recruiting that they have seen, heard of, or engaged in as a coach. Some of the topics the coaches felt other negative recruited about were the location of the university, success of the program, sexuality, and the coach. Men’s Basketball Coach 2 described what other coaches said about his prior university. He felt that the other coaches would make fun of the university to the recruit. He recalled: 104 Yeah when I was at [name of former university] uh you know we would flat out have uh one coach in our conference whenever a kid uh said they were a guest and they would say who are you looking at, and when they said [name of former university], he would say well have you ever been there. And then the jokes would start about how white it was, and how cold it is, and how far away it is from home, and that sort of thing. Women’s Soccer Coach I felt that other coaches negatively recruit against his school using a variety of topics. He did not believe that they used one specific thing to sway recruits against going to his university. He stated: I think some of the negative recruiting are always gonna be things like our weather here in [name of city], you know the size of the school, if they think they can use it against us they’ll use it. We certainly think it is a huge positive. Uh, but, uh, they’ll be some schools that will use that I think that against [name of university] the biggest thing we run into is the whole weather issue just trying to take care of that. I think there has been some coaches that in the past years has tried to use some of the national team recruiting stuff against us. That all we recruit is national team players and you’ll never play there. Or they’ll take the flip side and say you know we’re not supportive of the national team...So anything that they can latch on to that they can recruit negatively. We don’t get to much coming back about our coaching staff and coaching ability. So I think we have a very good staff of people and people know we do a good job on that end. I think you will hear other schools use negative recruiting about other coaching staffs and typical same things you’ll hear in pretty much in any sport now. Wrestling Coach 1 had witnessed other coaches saying negative things about the coaching staff and the ability to win at his university. He mentioned: I’ve had kids that have signed say yeah they were saying we’ve never had a national champ in the days before we had a, a champ. . .don’t go there you can’t win a national title look they’ve never done it, or they don’t have facilities. You know it’s just its unfortunate but it’s gone on. Football Coach 6, the head coach of a “mid-major” program, also experienced coaches saying negative things about his program. He believed that his success as a coach was used against him in the recruitment process. He said: Well for me personally it's the. . .you’re successful so you may not be around, you may not be playing'for that guy. Now the more people you got the either you're not going to play as early where before two years ago we played a lot of young 105 kids. Um, they'll criticize the town, um, you know whether it's in the deep south you know it might be for an African American, uh, you know its not a good place to go to school for 4 or 5 years. Um, and, uh, and the coaching staff. They'll look at that coaching staff whether its turned over or you know those guys aren't really good guys, you're not going to really like them, and, uh, like I said, uh, when people start doing that they're just grasping for straws at the end and very rarely does that ever work. Volleyball Coach 1 had encountered negative recruiting about the majors offered at his university, the social life, and his programs facilities. He stated: Well they might say well why would you want to go there? Their student, they, uh, they don't have your major. Uh or they don't uh uh have any social life at that school or they're losing. You know they haven't won any games or they got, uh, terrible facilities. Those type of things and I think that again and that's all and unless a guy is there working there how does he know that stuff. I mean that's all hearsay, that's all rumor. You know he's just making it up sometimes and, um, he doesn't know what your facilities are unless he's down there at your school. Um, he doesn't know what your academic makeup is unless he's involved with the academic. He doesn't know uh how you run your program unless you're involved there. While some coaches experienced negative recruiting surrounding their programs facilities, majors, and success, there were other coaches who had experienced more severe negative recruiting attacks. Volleyball Coach 2 felt other coaches have spoken negatively about her and her success as a coach because she is a woman. She recalled: Volleyball Coach 2: When I got here was I was a woman, women can't win in volleyball, coaches... Interviewer: Do you hear that a lot? Volleyball Coach 2: Oh yeah, the percentage of women coaches in volleyball is much smaller then the amount of women coaches in basketball. So it is probably ten percent of the women are women coaches, something in there I don't know the exact numbers I haven't kept up on it. There are few women who are coaching in at high level division one volleyball so what the men use on that is men are the ones who, look at the final four it's all men. Well more men are employed so obviously the odds would be up. So they use that, but in women's basketball women are winning the final four, so is it a gender thing or is it an opportunity thing. In my opinion it is an opportunity thing. But they will use that in an opportunity, because why would you go with a woman when no woman has won the final four yet. So that is what they will do is put a slant on that and say even though its not really I don't think its based on gender that we can’t win. I think it 106 is opportunity, I think it is choice, I think some women don't want to coach at this level because it is so cut throat. Volleyball Coach 2 was not the only coach who witnessed negative recruiting attacks. The women’s basketball coaches all discussed some level of negative recruiting and it inevitably centered on sexuality. Two of the women’s basketball coaches were upfront about this topic. Women’s Basketball Coach 1, a male head coach, mentioned sexuality and stereotypes that coaches negative recruit about. The discussion centered on the stereotypes surrounding female basketball players. Women’s Basketball Coach 1: Well it’s just the lesbian issue in women’s basketball, ya know, the female head coach and there might be a lesbian issue on the team or rumors have gotten out about that. Again it is becoming less and less of an issue in these days. Interviewer: Is that something that you think people would negative recruit about though? . Women’s Basketball Coach 1: I think so, yeah I think so. Interviewer: Do you think that happens often? Women’s Basketball Coach 1: I don’t think it happens often, I think it happens. Women’s Basketball Coach 5 went into more detail about the negative recruiting that goes on surrounding sexuality and women’s basketball. He stated: Women’s Basketball Coach 5: One of the biggest negative recruitments that goes on out there is the whole sexuality of women's basketball. And does the program have lesbian players? Does the, is there gay coaches at that school? And you know for a 16 year old kid going through the recruiting process and that may be a conservative family uh that stuff can really scare families and the and unfortunately that's a little black a little bit of a black eye on the profession and eh and people negatively recruit behind the" scenes on that issue. Interviewer: Do you think that happens a lot uh when other coaches mention the sexuality at that university, at a specific university, or the players on the team? Women’s Basketball Coach 5: I think it happens, um, more than people are willing to admit. I don’t think it happens all of the time. I don’t think it happens from ethical people who just try to sell their own institution. But I do believe it’s out there and there’s no doubt that it happens with some with some... 107 While Women’s Basketball Coach 5 was very candid about how other coaches focus their negative recruiting upon sexuality, Women’s Basketball Coach 2, a female head coach, did not come right out and state the fact that sexuality is often used against a program. Interviewer: So does negative recruiting, have you heard any stories of it getting personal against, personal attacks against a coach or players on the team or assistant coaches? Women’s Basketball Coach 2: Yes. Interviewer: What kinds of things do people say about them? Women’s Basketball Coach 2: I don’t want to go there. Interviewer: Okay. Women’s Basketball Coach 2: But it’s yes. It’s an easy yes. While Women’s Basketball Coach 2 did not come right out and state it, in our interview she alluded to the fact that negative recruiting sometimes gets personal surrounding sexuality. Women’s Basketball Coach 3, a female head coach, also did not talk about sexuality in her interview. When asked if negative recruiting ever got personal, she quickly shut down and got angry with me for asking these types of questions. It was clear that the issue of negative recruiting surrounding sexuality is a touchy subject for some coaches. It is important to note that the two coaches who did not want to answer the question were both woman, while the men were very open about this occurrence. Throughout the discussions on negative recruiting, the coaches always discussed negative recruiting as an activity that others engaged in. However, there was one coach who admitted engaging in negative recruiting. Football Coach 1 was very honest about his previous experience with negative recruiting. He recalled: You know what. . .It is what it is, you know what I mean. Certain things, I mean hey, I don't I try not to do it but you know what there are things that you have to sell about your program and what you are selling as positive with yours you are comparing with what is negative with there's. And I'm not a big guy to I've done it, you know, I got, a couple years ago, I was at a clearly better school than the 108 other one. I was a Division H school and the kid was I think I'm going to go to an NAIA school and I starting stomping him. Why would you, you know our school plays much better football and I started doing it and, um, you know, I really, cause I was frustrated because it was a clear difference I didn't even think about it. It was stupid of me. But I did it to my boss’s former boss, guy that it was his former coach, his former head coach when he was an assistant, when he was a player he played for this guy and, um, like I worked for a very good guy, a very calm one, told me never to do that again. That and I only try and point out true things, but in my opinion there's a way of saying it as opposed to saying that school stinks we're so much better there's a way of saying it in a positive manner that's not bashing them. Negative recruiting is a problem that goes on in every sport at the Division I level. While all but one of the coaches in this study did not admit to engaging in this behavior, it is clear that is still goes on consistently. Coaches may feel the need to negative recruit in order to gain an edge in winning an athlete. Coaches face many obstacles and competition in the recruitment process. The heavy competition and the tremendous pressure may cause coaches to resort to looking out for their own interests rather than the interests of the recruits. From promising recruits scholarships for an unknown year to pressuring athletes to commit before they have had a chance to visit other schools to engaging in negative recruiting, coaches have to decide where they stand on all of these ethical issues. Summary The second theme, ethics and rules, illustrated that the recruitment process is filled with rules. Some of the coaches believed that these rules were necessary and there to protect the recruits from overzealous coaches. However, there were other coaches that felt all of the NCAA rules were unnecessary. Regardless of the coaches’ beliefs about the rules, it was clear that rule breaking was prevalent in the recruitment process. Most coaches felt that the rule breaking was 109 unintentional. The rule breaking could be as minor as accidentally making one extra phone call to a recruit. For instance, if the head coach called a recruit during their allotted one phone call per week and then the assistant coach, unaware that the head coach had already placed that phone call, calls the same recruit, they have committed a recruiting violation. This violation would most likely not be done maliciously. However, there are instances when coaches purposefully ignore the rules and make as many phone calls as they desire. A current example of this is Kelvin Sampson, the former Indiana University men’s basketball coach. Prior to his coming to Indiana University, Sampson was the coach at the University of Oklahoma. While at Oklahoma, Sampson and his coaching staff were found by the NCAA to have made 577 illegal phone calls to recruits (O’Toole & Marot, 2006). Most recently he was in trouble with the NCAA again for making illegal phone calls to recruits. This repeated pattern of rule breaking illustrates that some coaches truly ignore the rules set forth by the NCAA. In addition to the discussion about rules, the coaches were vocal about the concept of negative recruiting. Negative recruiting is when coaches try to influence a recruit to choose their university over the others that are recruiting the athlete. They do this by comparing their school to the others, discussing hearsay about the other school to the recruit, or using stereotypes or personal attacks to influence the recruit. However, there is no clear definition of what negative recruiting is and is not. As a result, many of the coaches in this study defined negative recruiting differently. The one constant was that every coach discussed negative recruiting and stated that it existed within collegiate sport. The coaches experiences with negative recruiting varied. Some had witnessed negative recruiting take the form of other coaches saying they their school 110 did not have as many resources, the coach might leave because he or she is too good, the coach might be fired because the program is not doing as well as it had in the past, and so forth. A prevalent example of negative recruiting occurred in women’s basketball. The negative recruiting in this sport appeared to get very personal, specifically surrounding the issue of sexuality. When discussing negative recruiting, the female women’s basketball coaches did not address this issue. They refused to discuss this topic. However, the male women’s basketball coaches did address the topic. Obviously, the male coaches do not have to worry about being labeled a lesbian so this tactic was not used against them personally but it may have been used to describe members of their team. In contrast, the female coaches may have had to address and deal with sexuality stereotypes and negative recruiting surrounding this sexuality in women’s basketball for a long time. As a result, the female coaches may have been tired of discussing the topic or did not want to give credence to this issue. Overall, the ethics and rules theme demonstrated the vast number of rules that coaches must understand and abide by in order to be successful at the recruitment process. However, the coaches stated that there are coaches who break the rules in order to gain an edge in winning’a recruit. Along with rule breaking, the coaches believed that the increase in early recruiting has led to a higher transfer rate for athletes because coaches are obtaining commitments from athletes when they are very young and perhaps unable to make the best decisions for their future. Coaches looking out for their own interests were seen in a variety of ways, including negative recruiting. This process was 111 prevalent throughout each of the interviews with the coaches. There are ethical dilemmas and coaches must deal with these scenarios every day. 112 CHAPTER 6 Sociocultural Issues and Access Are female athletes recruited differently than male athletes? Are black athletes recruited differently than white athletes? Do coaches recruit differently depending on where their university is geographically located? Is it necessary to be affluent and pay for recruiting services and attend summer sporting camps in order to be recruited? All of these questions were answered in this study. The coaches discussed issues of gender, race, class, and access in regards to the recruitment process. Their comments about various sociocultural issues illuminated disparities that exist within the current structure of the recruitment system. The theme of sociocultural issues and access will be examined through four sub-themes: geography, gender, race, and socioeconomic status. This theme is illustrated in Figure 6. 113 Figure 6. Examination of Division I Recruiting: Sociocultural Issues and Access Ethics and Rules Gender Race Geography Socioeconomic Status Sociocultural Issues and Access \ An Examination of Division I Recruiting and the Recruiting Process The Recruiting Process 114 Geography I think because the world is a smaller place. . .It’s just a greater opportunity to get information and people consider the world to be a smaller place you know. Going from Atlanta, Georgia to [city and state of university] is not something unheard of whereas 10 years or 20 years ago nobody even considered it. There aren’t a lot of boundaries anymore in recruiting. - Football Coach 4 Does an athlete’s geographical location impact the likelihood of the athlete being recruited? According to Wrestling Coach 1, the head coach of a well-known wrestling program, where an athlete’s hometown is can impact the recruitment process. He believed that if an athlete is used to having his parents support him it may be harder for the athlete to attend a university away home. He stated: Well you know as you’re recruiting them you get to know the family and you get to know the kid and you get to observe the kid at tournaments. You’re gonna talk to them and ask them in depth questions about you know when he goes to tournaments’ are your parents always there and if he says oh yea my parents never miss a meet, they’re always at everything, they’ve been with me all the time. Then you’re thinking this kid’s from say he’s from Florida and were recruiting him to Missouri, you’re gonna think his parents aren’t gonna be at everything in college, and how’s he gonna deal with that. And you’ll ask those questions and that’s something you’ve gotta have to sense that. Well if he says I really want my parents to be at everything and all that, that’s one of those things I’m trying to look for the closest school. There’s some cues that you can pick up on and you can say I just don’t know if this kid’s gonna be happy here or you know that type of thing. While Wrestling Coach I believed that geography can impact the recruitment process, there were two coaches who disagreed. Men’s Soccer Coach I thought geographical diversity added to the richness of his team. He said: It's kind of odd because I've always said I wouldn't build a team with players from the immediate geographic area because I always felt that, been a firm believer that you need to have you know not just a diverse background but you need to have players, I believe in geographic diversity and I think that each player being a natural ingredient in his characteristics in his DNA that you can nurture and you can mold and its going to respond when you challenge it. If kids are all from the same neighborhood, think alike, look alike, perhaps its, what is there really to 115 draw from you got everybody agreeing with what's going on and no one’s willing to step up and say look we need to do it this way. And that's always been my thinking. That's why we've gone out and actively recruited players that come from different parts of the country because I think there's some value in um what so we've. . .being who I am has allowed me to bring in and recruit a lot of diversity. We've always had diversity here both geographically as well as ethnically. Ice Hockey Coach 1, the coach of a former National Championship team, did not think that a recruit’s geographical location would hurt them in the recruiting process. However, he did believe that in his sport recruits tended to choose universities close to their hometowns. He also discussed the role of international athletes in his sport. He commented: ...one thing in hockey it's in the US. it's very much a regional recruiting concept. You know so the best kids in the state of [competing state] aren't going to consider [name of university]. They're going to consider [name of rival school] and [name of rival school] and that. Where the best kids in [name of state] want to go to one of two schools first. Where in Canada they're much more open to going anywhere. So that's more of a broad based open recruiting pool. And Europe is creeping into the picture as kind of wide open too. Interviewer: Do you recruit out of Canada and Europe often? Ice Hockey Coach 1: Europe almost never. We don't have any. We I think we have four Canadians on our team. You know its not near as dominant as it used to be. Probably ten years ago there'd be 12 or 14 Canadians. You know now it's down to four. Interviewer: Why do you think it's decreased? Ice Hockey Coach 1: I think the growth of hockey in the US. for sure. The state of [name of state] is one of the best states for hockey players and you know I like the [name of state] kids best because this where they want to be. They're families are close. You know it's a first choice school for them. While Ice Hockey Coach 1 was not against recruiting athletes from other states, he felt that those athletes would prefer attending the universities close to their hometowns. Further, he did state that he recruited out of Canada but not as frequently as in the past due to the increase in hockey programs and quality athletes in the United States. 116 The location of the recruit was not the only geographical issue that arose when speaking with the coaches in this study. The location of the university also played a part in the recruitment process. Football Coach 1, the coach of a “mid-major” school located in the Midwest, felt that he was at a disadvantage in winning some recruits because of the location of his university. He felt: I'll tell you the truth, I mean I think that like especially when you are talking about down south, where we are at we could recruit a kid from Atlanta and the fact that we are more of a rural school means a lot less to them than the fact that is frickin cold. Weather frickin kills the kids from the south. They don't wanna come up because it's cold, that's what bothers them I think. Even though majority of the coaches did not have strong opinions on the role of geography in the recruitment process, there were some coaches that felt the location of the athlete or the university could have an impact on whether a coach recruits an athlete or that athlete commits to a school. It is clear that geographical location may play a part in the recruitment process for certain coaches and while others do not appear to factor it into their decisions. Gender Ithink relationships are a big factor in the women's side. I mean when girls come in I think they want to feel. They want to feel comfortable with the coaching staff. They want to feel comfortable with the people they are going to play with. They want to feel like they get along um, they need to spend enough time at the school where they can get a feel for you know they type of kids that are on your team because that's really in all honestly that's really the difference between one program and another.... Uh I don't think the guys are necessarily as tuned into that. I think they feel, they kind of go with the flow and they just say if I can be good in this program and they're going to get me some place and I'm going to get a chance to go to the NCAA tournament and all this other stuff that goes along with the playing part I think they're more, they're more tuned into that than they are into the personal relationships with teammates. - Women’s Basketball Coach 4 How does gender impact the recruitment process? This question is best answered by the coaches that deal with recruiting both men and women, as well as the coaches who 117 coach female teams. These coaches are able to speak to the role of gender in the recruitment process. Gender difi‘erences. Do young women and men approach the recruitment process differently? According to the coaches who currently or previously coached both men and women, they do. In their opinion, the majority of these differences center on women making more emotional decisions and men making more “tangible” decisions. Women’s Basketball Coach 4, a male coach of a female team, believed that women made more emotional decisions than the men he previously coached. He stated: I think with the girls I think that they make very emotional decisions. Urn, even though you can tell them, you can sit them down at 10 different occasions and tell them to list the positives and negatives of every school that's recruiting them and the bottom line is that when it really comes down to making a decision they really ever look at that list and make it with their gut. And uh I think a lot of times it comes on hype. It comes on how much attention people have paid them. Interviewer: How does that differ from the men you used to recruit when a men’s coach? Women’s Basketball Coach 4: Well I think the men make decisions much more, they’re much more, they’re much less emotional and much more cut and dry. I think they, they make decisions based on a programs success. They make decisions based on I mean you know just things that are more tangible: media exposure, times on television. How many, how many pro prospects? How many guys have gone on to play at the higher levels at the NBA levels or over in Europe? Um, how many times have you won the league? You know stuff like that. It’s more tangible than it is on the girl, on the girl’s side. The girls side more emotional you know did they get along with their teammates uh did you know when they visited did they like the players. I don’t think the guys, the guys don’t make decisions like that as much. It’s just a little bit, it’s different. Men’s and Women’s Swimming Coach 1, a male coach of a men’s and women’s team, did not think emotions were as big a part of the decision making process as Women’s Basketball Coach 4 did. He felt the differences in recruiting stemmed from the fact that there were more scholarship opportunities for women which led to some women 118 desiring the attention and deciding to go to the school that gave them the most attention. He stated: You know I think maybe I think it’s um guys in general don’t like to talk very much especially high school guys. Um, so, I think they don’t um like the attention as much. I think they want attention. You know you can’t just call them once and never talk to them again. Um, but I think ah in general girls may want um to be contacted more and I don’t know that if that’s necessarily just because of gender. I think that ah there’s just so much more opportunities for females in swimming, um, because like for instance women have 14 scholarships. Guys have 9.9. Um, so I think that there is a lot more opportunity out there so there’s and there are a lot more programs so a lot more people are are contacting them so they feel kinda some girls have told me you know “I’m not really interested” “Why?” They are like “Well, you didn’t really call me enough.” I’m like, “Well, I called you every two weeks. I told you in our very first conversation that I wasn’t gonna call you every week because you needed your space.” You know that kind of thing and for them to have a good time as you’re a senior. I tell everybody that and um but some people were calling her every single week so she felt like she needed us to call her every week, too. Um, some people get annoyed by that but I, I would say there’s least difference between male and females as far as that is between what people really what they come to expect for themselves or whatever else so if somebody you know they’re want their ego validated you know if, “Hey I’m really good and you didn’t call me every week so I’m not interested in your school anymore.” Where somebody else like I said I mean I have emailed somebody twice and they’ve come to school. So, I think there is more by the person than maybe background and their expectations than does between males and females so. Some guys are easy, you know, um, and some guys aren’t. Some girls are and some girls aren’t. So, I don’t know I think maybe because there are more opportunities that girls expect more money um than maybe a guy does for the same like level of talent maybe. Um, but it’s really hard to tell cause it’s not, you know, it’s not just out there. Men’s and Women’s Track and Field Coach 1, a male coach of both men and women, felt that the differences in the recruitment process were due to the men and women being interested in different things. He noticed these differences when he was making phone calls to the recruits. He commented: Men’s and Women’s Track and Field Coach 1: It’s huge. . .um, just on the telephone making phone calls, you’re talking to a 17 year old boy and you’re talking to a 17 year old girl- completely different conversation. The girl, um, I can think of some conversations in particular where the girl is telling me about homecoming coming up and the dress that she got, and she’s really excited to go 119 to the dance and things like that. You’re talking to the guy about a new Halo video game and things like that. So it’s not always track and field on the phone because you want to develop a relationship where they feel comfortable with you and of course, a girl’s going to want to talk about different things than a guy. So you just kind of have to figure out what that is for each person, what their interests are. Interviewer: Do you think that the men and women are expecting or looking for different things out of the recruitment process? Men’s and Women’s Track and Field Coach 1: I like, they believe that they’re all looking for the same thing and the end product is, ‘am I going to be a good fit for this university’? And if they are, hopefully everything else kind of falls in line. So like I said, I think it’s a different path getting there, you know talking to a girl verses talking to a guy. But in the end, if they want to come for the right reasons, than hopefully the end process is, you know, ‘I want to be a part of [name of university] Track and Field’. The coaches who have previously or currently coached both sexes believed that there were differences when recruiting men and women. The experiences and opinions about the differences varied but they all believed the process of recruiting men and women were not the same. Further, the coaches did not question these differences but accepted them as a natural part of the recruitment process. Sex of Coach. In addition to athletes being recruited differently because of their sex, coaches may have to face challenges because of their sex. Specifically, the coaches of female teams may face challenges as a woman coaching women or a man coaching women. Women’s Basketball Coach 5 did not think that his sex as a man hurt him in the recruitment process. If anything, it may have helped him because the women he was recruiting were used to playing for men. He stated: You know the one thing I don't know if it is a benefit but a lot of the high school coaches and a lot of the summer league coaches are guys and so some of the recruits get used to playing for men and they don't mind playing for me. So, it's never hurt me. I don't know if it is a benefit but it's never hurt me. 120 Women’s Basketball Coach 2, a female coach, felt similarly to Women’s Basketball Coach 5. She felt the fact that young women have played for many male coaches during their basketball careers impacted their choices when deciding which school to attend. Women’s Basketball Coach 2 had strong opinions when it came to how men and women are perceived in basketball and coaching. A long discussion began when she was asked how her sex impacted the recruitment process. She said: Women’s Basketball Coach 2: It does a lot. It’s starting to more and more recently. The most recent years, gender definitely does affect it. Interviewer: How does it affect it? How have you noticed it changing and becoming more I guess? Women’s Basketball Coach 2: The majority of AAU coaches, a huge percentage are male. The high school coaches are starting to become more and more male so the players are starting to get used to playing for men. Um, so a lot of the women are starting to be different. Interviewer: What do you mean by different? Women’s Basketball Coach 2: Well we’re female. We’re not men. Interviewer: Okay. Women’s Basketball Coach 2: And our society is still geared towards patriarchal values. Urn, you know, I think it’s different if it is a single mother. I think the athlete would look at it different but right now the players um are you know a lot of times they’ll bring up they enjoy playing for a man or want to play for a woman. It is addressed a lot surprisingly. And I’m not sure if that’s because of the student athlete or if that’s because of the parents or where that influence on the perspective student athlete is coming from but it comes up a lot. Interviewer: Do you think that being a female coach I guess is detrimental then because they’re so used to playing for a man you have to work extra hard to prove you’re just as qualified, you’re just as good? Women’s Basketball Coach 2: Um, I think that’s because of society and I think that’s in any job not just in coaching that we are having to prove ourselves. That we are strong enough, intelligent enough, um that we work just as many hours as they do and probably the positive is that we are role models and if these student athletes want strong female role models that would be the other side of it. We can give them that. We can show them that. Um, also you know a lot of times women are seen as more compassionate so that should be a positive as well. So different strengths and weakness but yes I do agree with your statement. Interviewer: So do you think it’s going to change any time in the future given that the two final teams at this years tournament were coached by strong, intelligent, very vocal, out there women? Women’s Basketball Coach 2: Um, if you look at the hiring at the Division I level this year, majority of the Division I’s um women’s basketball coaching jobs went 121 to men. So we’re starting to see a shift from, athletic directors are hiring more men as head coaches. Men as head coaches are hiring more men as assistant coaches. So just in recent years there have been more men in our profession getting hired than females. Interviewer: How do you feel about that? Women’s Basketball Coach 2: Um, you know, I think it’s important to hire the best person for the job. I would put myself up against any man or woman so I think it’s important that we get good people, um, that take care of their student athletes. Women’s Basketball Coach 2 felt very strongly that even though she coaches women, the sport was still dominated by patriarchal values and ideals. She felt she was just as qualified as any man and wished recruits and society would recognize the accomplishments of women coaches. Women’s Soccer Coach 1, a male coach, also had strong opinions about how his sex impacted the recruitment process. He discussed why he switched from coaching men to coaching women. Further, he believed that Title IX had helped grow women’s soccer. However, as the sport grew, Women’s Soccer Coach I believed that women who did not know much about the sport were coaching it which could have contributed to some people believing male coaches were better than female coaches. He stated: I think that when I got involved in the women’s game I started coaching men and women. Basically I started coaching men with youth soccer for 10 years before I even got into college soccer. When I started coaching college soccer is when'l first started coaching women’s soccer as well. I made a conscious decision to leave the men’s game and move into the women’s game at the time I did for a lot of reasons but one of the reasons was there weren’t many good coaches and I thought it was a great opportunity to elevate myself as a coach not only with my college team but with the national team programs and that’s something that I always had a dreams of with national and international soccer. I would say 15-20 years ago there were not very many good coaches out there period, and most of the coaches coaching women’s soccer were male coaches. I think now that we’re, we’ve grown so much and were starting to produce such good female players. We’re starting to see much more female coaches in the game. And I’m a big proponent of that. I think we need more female coaches. I think we need more female role models in our sport and that’s why we’ve always tried to have at least one of our coaches on staff being a female coach. I do think its important. 122 Interesting enough when I was hired at [name of university] the players said we don’t want a female coach we want a male coach. I don’t know why. I don’t know all the reasons behind it but that was basically what the players here wanted. I think we are starting now to develop a generation of more qualified female coaches. I don’t think we have enough. I think we have a lot of female coaches coaching. I don’t think they’re all really qualified. I think Title D( probably in some way’s rushed some young females into coaching that weren’t quite ready and we’ve seen a lot of those initial coaches get into the women’s game then either get fired or get out mainly because they weren’t prepared. I think now that that wave has kind of run its course of the Title IX issues and I think now we’re trying to get a generation of a lot of really good young female coaches who are really doing a great job out there. Women’s Soccer Coach 1 first began coaching women’s soccer because he felt there were not many qualified coaches to help grow the sport. He admitted that his sex could help him in the recruitment process because in his previous experiences he witnessed female athletes expressing a desire to play for a male coach. While many of the coaches of women’s teams felt that their sex may have a role in the recruitment process, Men’s and Women’s Track and Field Coach 1 did not feel his sex impacted the recruitment process. He believed that athletes would make a decision to come to his school because he is a good coach and his sex had nothing to do with it. However, he did acknowledge that his sex may be an issue for parents. He commented: Kind of going along the lines of what I was saying earlier, hopefully that, that isn’t a huge factor because if they want to come to school here, hopefully they want to come to school because they believe that I’m a good coach and believe in what our program is doing. Um, but it, it’s different, you know-talking with high school boys verses talking with high school girls. You definitely want to make sure that the parents feel comfortable when you have a seventeen year old girl, you know, flying in from Colorado on a visit with a strange guy that’s going to pick them up from the airport. So, there just has to be a pre-established level of comfort with the family, usually. In speaking with the coaches, the coaches of women’s teams did acknowledge that sex or gender did factor into the recruitment process in some way. Some coaches felt that they had to recruit male and female athletes differently. Other coaches felt that their 123 sex could influence a recruit’s decision to attend a certain university. However, it is important to note that sex and gender did not appear to affect or be a cause for concern for coaches of the men’s teams. Race I think hockey is one of those great sports that is colorblind type of venue. - Ice Hockey Coach 2 I wouldn’t say I mean you know I wouldn’t use the term racial what I would use is the term comfortability. I mean coaches in general are going to recruit people that they are comfortable with and players and recruit players if they are former players themselves, players that remind them of themselves in a lot of ways. You know in, you’re not going to see. . .there are certain types of coaches that recruit certain types of players. - Men’s Soccer Coach 1 Does an athlete’s skin color impact how he or she is recruited? Many of the coaches in this study did not perceive any racial or ethnic issues in recruiting. However, there were some coaches that would speak about this sensitive subject. The coaches who did talk about the role of race/ethnicity in the recruitment process discuss racial differences and how the race of a coach could impact recruiting. Racial/Ethnic Difierences. Some of the coaches who chose to discuss racial issues or differences in recruiting stated that they thought there was a lack of racial diversity in their sport. Men’s and Women’s Swimming Coach 1, a white, male coach in his mid- 30’s, thought that the absence of racial diversity was due to the low number of minority athletes who participate in his sport. He stated: Swimming-wise I mean, ah, I guess it’s swimming but I mean in general there aren’t that many minorities that swim, urn, so there are obviously there are some I mean they’re speckled throughout the community and things like that, um, but most, most of the people that we are going to recruit are going to be Caucasian urn not because of any racist thing but because there’s that’s the mass populace. Uh, I would say at [name of university] for us we have a pretty unique team, um, as far as, as far as I’m concerned, I mean, where when I was at [name of former university], it was pretty much, you know, we were all white you know. We had 124 one girl that was, ah, a mixed family that came out to the team and then she was there for a month or so and then had a bad shoulder and couldn’t swim any more. Um, but, here we have a black diver, and ah two black swimmers, um an Asian swimmer, um just I would say several people that are from foreign countries um things like so it’s real diverse but I don’t think in recruiting it might be an issue but not in swimming because for swimming if you’re fast you’re fast you know I think in general maybe some coaches do but you know for us at [name of university] if you are fast and you can help the team we don’t really care. Men’s and Women’s Swimming Coach 1 did not believe that he or his fellow coaches were being racist by recruiting predominantly Caucasian swimmers. In his opinion, the lack of racial diversity was due to fewer minorities participating in the sport. Baseball Coach 1, a white, male coach in his mid—30’s, offered a different opinion for the low number of minority athletes on his team. He believed it was hard to recruit minority athletes to a team that currently had little racial diversity. He commented: The tough thing is, and we have a, you know, we have a couple minorities on our team, but the biggest thing is if you do, you know, bring a student athlete in, it’s sometimes tough because you bring him in and they see a whole white team, you know, and they might not feel too good. But, you know, besides that, no. You know, there’s really, I haven’t really seen much of a racial difference. Except for that, I mean, again, you know, it’s tough when you bring a kid in and you have a whole white team and it’s like, you know, even though we don’t look at color, I mean, it’s pretty evident that we don’t have much. Baseball Coach 1 had trouble recruiting minority athletes to his team because they were not racially diverse; however, this was not true for all coaches. Men’s and Women’s Track and Field Coach 1, a white, male coach in his early 30’s, believed that his team was very racially diverse. He attributed the racial diversity of athletes to the different needs of his team. He felt that having a wide variety of events requiring different athletic abilities in his sport led to the racial diversity on the team. He believed: Well, in our sport, it’s very diverse because we have so many different types of events. Between sprints and jumps and distance and throws, um, typically we’ll have people from several different ethnic backgrounds. Um, we’ll have kids from inner city, we’ll have kids from very ‘well-to-do’ families, and all joined together, 125 over 100 and try to make them as a team. It’s just unique because different events, um, just kind of require different types of abilities which, usually, you know the athletes come from different kinds of places, and you know, city kids are the fast kids and things like that. So, we have, we’ve got people from 3 or 4 different countries on the team. Ah, we’ve got anything from you know, African American, Asian, Caucasian, so. Everybody comes together and we’re all, you know in it together. We’re all in it for the same reasons. So, it’s just, blending together as one team. Football Coach 1, a white, male coach in his mid-30’s, felt similar to Men’s and Women’s Track and Field Coach 1 in that different positions required different abilities on the football field. He believed that the race of an athlete could impact whether or not a coach recruited that athlete to play a certain position. When asked the role of race or ethnic background in the recruitment process, Football Coach 1 stated: Football Coach 1: Oh, I mean, certainly the race of an athlete, I guess I'm not gonna say that I mean I'm a white guy you're gonna be really hard pressed for me to sign a white guy that's a comer, ha ha. Interviewer: Why is that? Football Coach 1: Cause white guys can't run. Ha ha. Hey. It is what it is, you know. I'm gonna have to see a legitimate track time on that dude. He's gonna have to be in like the finals of the one hundred meter dash at the state championships for me to recruit that guy. I didn't mean it in a, you know, I'm a white guy don't say that about recruiting a white guy, there's just no, you know, I'm gonna have to see that he runs like a 10.7 hundred electric timing, for me to recruit him as a comer. There's just no way, unless he runs that time. Because I mean there's no one out there, there's just no white guys out there that play defense, corner, I mean safety that's one thing but comer, they have the hips, they've got speed, you're not gonna find me doing it. Um, he better be able to really run like that. Um, I'm not a racist at all you know, I don't know if you can be racist against your own race, but, that's just a reality of mine. There's just less white guys that can run like that. That have the fluid hips in and out of breaks and so forth; I just don't think that it's very common. Um, but you know, I don't think, other than that, I mean there certainly isn't. Football Coach I commented that he felt an athlete’s race could influence his athletic ability. Specifically, he felt that white athletes were not going to be as fast as black athletes. Therefore he was going to avoid recruiting the white athletes to positions that required a great deal of speed. 126 Football Coach 5, an African American, male coach, also discussed the role of race in the recruitment process for football. He believed that coaches routinely recruited black athletes differently than they recruited white athletes. He felt that the way coaches sold the university to the athletes was primarily where the difference occurred. Football Coach 5 remarked: Football Coach 5: There's no question about it. I've heard of that and, and a lot of times it, it can be an insult if you're dealing with a certain parent and it's a particular, your selling a particular thing about a university based on say women. Uh, there's a large population of African American student athletes and there is a large population of African American females on campus. They sell things like that which uh for again for me that's not what is important so I stay away from things like that. I really try and sell the things like your gonna get a good education and play Division I football which is the highest level you can play I mean and ya know. Uh, you compete against the quote BCS schools and things like that. I stay away from things like that because I feel when you start doing things like that‘s an insult. I don't do that but I've heard plenty of people and plenty of schools that would do that. Interviewer: Can you describe, um, one of the instances that you've heard of you know aside from you know there's girls here that coaches have used? Football Coach 5: Uh fraternities, um, that would be more fraternities on campus or that there's um just the general student body would be a higher percentages of minorities on campus and things like that is what they sell. Even the make up of the football team can be something I've heard that people would see that you uh have more people on the team that would look like you as opposed to if you went to a place like [name of university]. . Interviewer: In your experience, do these coaches say the same things to the white student athletes? Fobtball Coach 5: Oh no. I think it is totally different that way and really its something that because if you recruit the white athletes it is something that never needs you just never discuss that. Then again I think that that is not an issue for white athletes. I don't really think that that ever comes up. Again, my personal experience and I always thought this was kind of strange that I never, what is the case that I recruited mOre white athletes then I have recruited African American athletes and Ifind more white athletes then African American athletes. So again, it's not for me. You just recruit whoever whatever kid you have that is in your area that you're recruiting. You just recruit them all the same. I don't see them any different that way. Football Coach 5 truly felt that black athletes were recruited differently than white athletes. He believed coaches tried to sell black athletes on their school by speaking about 127 girls, fraternities and the racial makeup/percentages of the school; however, he did not witness coaches discussing these aspects of the school with white athletes. Even though a majority of the coaches did not speak about any racial or ethnic issues in recruiting, most of the coaches who did discuss this issue felt that differences in recruiting were due to a lack of minorities in the sport. Further, two of the football coaches detailed how they had witnessed differences in recruiting based on race. The stereotypes that exist about black athletes were exemplified in football recruiting. Race of coach. Does the color of a coaches skin impact the recruitment process? The overall consensus among coaches was that a coach’s race was not the main reason an athlete would or would not choose to go to a school. However, they did feel that race could play a role in the decision. Women’s Basketball Coach 1, a white, male coach, felt that the race of a coach could impact an athlete’s decision to choose school A over school B. However, he did not believe it was the sole factor. He stated: I believe that’s possible although I don’t think that is necessary true that black players want to play for a black coach or a white player wants to play for a white coach. I think it’s a factor but there are probably 20 factors but I think it can be an advantage either way. I’m not sure it’s the most important thing. There are successful white coaches and there are successful black coaches and they get white players and they get black players. I would like to think there is more to it then just the color of the skin. Football Coach 5 also felt that race was not the main factor for athletes. Although, he did feel that it may be an important aspect for parents. When asked if he thought the race of a coach could affect the recruitment process he said: I think so. I haven’t had any personal experience with that a kid would only go because of the makeup of the student athlete I mean of a coach. I have heard of certain instances where that was the case because the parents thought it was important. But we generally don’t get that direct question. Now we’ll say that if 128 say for instance there is an African American student athlete and the parent may indirectly want to know how many African American coaches. Do you have who can he come talk to if he has a problem? Across the board only a couple maybe one or two African American coaches on the staff and I don’t know where that number came from but that’s usually the case parents want to know, but its like that everywhere so its not anything out of the norm just to have two African American coaches. I think sometimes the parents concern with that is if my son has an issue can he come talk to you and things like that. It’s just one of those things where it’s been that way since I was a player and it was more just identification more then anything because for the most part those kids may not be coached by African American coaches. While Women’s Basketball Coach 1 and Football Coach 5 believed that the race of a coach was not a big factor in the recruitment process, there were coaches who felt it could lead to an athlete choosing one school over another. Men’s Basketball Coach 2, a white, male coach, believed that the race of the coach was important for some athletes. He stated: Yeah, I think there is a certain portion of both white kids and black kids who are more comfortable with a coach of the same race. I don’t think there is any question about that. I have no idea what that percentage is but uh, you know, I’m certain that its there. Men’s Soccer Coach I felt that being a black coach could be both beneficial and detrimental in the recruitment process. He commented: It's like a two edge sword. You can be a black head coach thinking that you have an advantage at bringing more black kids. That's not necessarily true. Cause a black family can look at you, and this is harsh, but they can think well stereotypical black guy, he might not know what he's doing. I mean there's that feeling as well. Men’s Soccer Coach I believed that being black could assist him in getting minority athletes to commit to his program. However, he also felt that some families may not believe he knew what he was doing or was not as good of a coach as a white man. He stated that he felt black families were thinking this about him, which illustrates that black coaches have to fight against stereotypes from families and recruits of all races. 129 While majority of coaches in this study did not discuss racial or ethnic issues in recruiting, there were some coaches that perceived this to be a problem. Some coaches felt that the lack of diversity in their sport contributed to the differences in recruiting. Meanwhile two football coaches detailed their beliefs about why and how coaches recruit black and white athletes differently. Along the same lines, majority of the coaches did not perceive the race of the coach to be a central factor in the recruitment process for the athletes. It is clear that race does play a part in the recruitment process. While it may be more pronounced in some sports, racial differences in recruiting do exist across the board. Socioeconomic Status We get it to a process where we want high need kids or no need kids. We don’t have a lot of middle class kids anymore because the kids who qualify for $10,000 in aid still need to come up with 36. So we want kids who are very, very poor or kids who can pay for it, and I shouldn’t even say very, very poor but kids who aren’t as privileged, but lower monetarily social groups because they will qualify for a lot of financial aid or the kids who can pay for it. - Ice Hockey Coach 2 Does a recruit’s socioeconomic status impact the recruitment process? Whether it was directly or indirectly, all of the coaches discussed the role of socioeconomic status and access in the recruitment process. Some coaches stated that socioeconomic differences could influence whether an athlete would get recruited to a certain university or not. Further, issues of the importance and necessity of recruiting services, unofficial visits, and attending camps were addressed by the coaches. Socioeconomic difierences. The overwhelming majority of coaches said that socioeconomic status could play a role in the process. That is not to say that the coaches only recruited wealthier athletes, but they felt that the athlete’s socioeconomic status 130 could influence things such as technological resources, exposure, and scholarship offerings. Women’s Basketball Coach 5 was a coach that felt the recruits from a lower socioeconomic status could potentially have a more difficult time in the recruitment process. He felt the hardship could come from not having as many technological resources at their disposal. He stated: I would say sometimes it is more a socioeconomic issue that sometimes people’s recruitment is harder because either they don't own cell phone packages or they don't have a home computer and so when they're not in school they don't have access to the intemet or computer and email but, um, I wouldn't generalize that as a as a ethnic issue. I would say more socioeconomic issue then anything. Football Coach 1 also believed that socioeconomic status could influence the recruitment process of the athletes. However, he thought the difference was from the exposure athletes from a higher socioeconomic status were able to get. He believed that an athlete’s socioeconomic status could: Hurt them a little bit as far as they don't have as much money to... I think it could hurt them, um, exposure limited-wise, I mean, as far as not getting to go to as many camps, um, you know, I think the city of Detroit used to, they probably had some kids who were pretty good players that didn't get the exposure they needed because of the fact that there was bad film and they probably didn't get to go to many camps. So many that a little bit, but the flip of that is that the city of Detroit is known for recruiting. So, I mean, there are 18 million recruiters going through there, so they've had their opportunities. So, um, maybe not getting to make quite as informed of a decision, um, if you have a lot of money you can go around to a bunch of camps. You can go around to a bunch of schools in the summer and start to narrow down your choices based on more than just like I like the color of their uniforms... Football Coach I believed that the disparity in the amount of exposure was the main difference that existed in the recruitment process for athletes of differing socioeconomic statuses. However, other coaches believed that a recruit’s socioeconomic 131 status could impact how much scholarship aid he or she was offered or whether the athlete continues to be recruited by that coach. Football Coach 2 stated that he believed a recruit’s socioeconomic status was not a large factor in the recruitment process. However, he did believe that there were things about NCAA rules and scholarship offerings that athlete’s from a lower socioeconomic status needed to understand. He felt that an athlete’s socioeconomic status: Doesn't factor in much other than the fact that I think you need to be aware of that because the NCAA, you know, they're not giving them any money other than their paying for their education. So if a kid shows up on your campus and he comes from a, uh, you know, a background where there was no money, that's going to be , an issue. You have to address that with him and make him understand up front that uh you know NCAA rules say that tuition, books, fees, room and board, that's what we can pay and, uh, you know, they can get jobs although its hard to work jobs during the season during the academic year but our kids work jobs during the summer and put a little money in their pocket that way and um but there's not a stipend if you will that's out there for these kids. Football Coach 2 did not think an athlete’s socioeconomic status would be an issue except for the fact that their scholarship does not include an extra stipend. In contrast, Women’s Soccer Coach 1 did believe that an athlete’s socioeconomic status could play a part in the recruitment process. He stated: You take a look at the one that maybe economically doesn’t have as much then that person maybe able to qualify for financial aid and a lot of money through financial aid department here maybe even more money then what we could have offered them through an athletic scholarship. So the flip side of that is we may try to steer that player through the financial aid route and use the money to go to those who don’t qualify for financial aid. So it does come into the equation a little bit I guess is what I am saying but not, not in terms as if it’s a clear cut we want this player and we need this player for this program we are going to make this offer to get her whether she has the money or not. But when it comes down to those that you’re trying to decide on when you’ve got two or three and you’re trying to make those decisions then the economic thing may come into play. Along the same lines, Men’s and Women’s Swimming Coach 1 also believed that a recruit’s socioeconomic status could factor into the recruitment process. However, he 132 felt that if a recruit was from a lower socioeconomic status that could eliminate him from the list of recruits a school is going to try to go after. He believed: Scholarship-wise um so if there is a kid that, say that I have two different kids and one is I don’t know uh they could be from the same area and maybe they’re both from [name of different state] or something and um one kid says um they’re both the same speed and all that kind of stuff and one kid says well I need a full-ride to come to school there you know and maybe you know let’s say the guy is not worth a full ride. Well, another guy the same speed says you know well you know I just I mean I like it here as much just as much as the other guy but you know scholarship is not important to me. Well, you know, it might, I might have to tell the other, “hey, look I can’t give you a full ride.” Um, so, if that’s his need socioeconorrrically and he needs that then you know he’s probably going to be cut from recruiting right away because we can’t give him money that he needs to come to school. For Men’s and Women’s Swimming Coach 1, an athlete’s socioeconomic status could impact the recruitment process. Since he has a limited number of scholarship 3 dollars available, an athlete who cannot afford to pay for school and needs a full ride will most likely be cut from his list of recruits. He felt that this was just the process of recruiting and he was acting within the system that is currently in place. Overall, it was clear that the coaches thought that socioeconomic status could impact the recruitment process in some way. Whether it is differences in technological resources, exposure, and scholarship offerings, athletes from a lower socioeconomic status appear to be at a disadvantage when it comes to the recruiting process. Recruiting services. Can recruiting services that athletes and their families pay for increase the likelihood of being recruited at the Division I level? The recruiting services market themselves as a way for athlete’s to gain exposure and increase the likelihood of being recruited. This is a strong assertion by these companies, but is it true? Do coaches actually pay attention to these services when it comes to recruiting athletes? 133 b1 Majority of the coaches in this study did not pay attention to the recruiting services that they received emails from regularly. In fact, Men’s Soccer Coach 1 believed these services were: A complete waste of money. . ..it is a waste of time. It’s another opportunity to take advantage of kids. Women’s Basketball Coach 1 had similar feelings about recruiting services. He believed that these services were a waste of time and money for families because he felt if an athlete was good enough than he would already know about them. A discussion about recruiting services occurred during the interview. Women’s Basketball Coach I mentioned that he got contacted by recruiting services on behalf of athletes but he did not pay attention to them. His rationale for this was: Um, usually we know which players we are going to go after and it’s very, very rare playing at our level is going to use one of these services. It’s really, um, I think it’s a waste of time for players to use these and parents to spend the money for these services. It might be better served and maybe Division II, NAIA, Division HI use these services more but we tend not to use them very much. Women’s Basketball Coach 2 also believed that the recruiting services were marketing players that were not at the level needed to play basketball at her university. She stated: Women’s Basketball Coach 2: It’s usually the recruiting services are they’re in business to present the players to us that they present players that aren’t as, aren’t the level that we would need at [name of university]. Um, but at the same time the parents are paying sometimes $500 to join these services so it’s a money maker versus a credible top talent. Interviewer: So, you don’t think they are worth the money then that the parents are spending? Women’s Basketball Coach 2: If I was a parent no, definitely not. Throughout the interviews, the other coaches had similar sentiments to Men’s Soccer Coach 1, Women’s Basketball Coach 1, and Women’s Basketball Coach 2. They 134 all thought that these recruiting services did not affect the recruiting process whatsoever at the Division I level. They believed families were being “ripped-off” by these companies. Therefore, it appears that being from a lower socioeconomic status and not being able to afford these recruiting services does not hurt an athlete’s chances of being recruited. Unofi'icial visits. Unofficial visits are when recruits pay to visit the school. The university is not allowed to cover any expenses of the visit, so the athlete and his or her family must be able to pay for travel, food, lodging, and so forth. These visits are different from official visits. Official visits are when a recruit visits a school and that university covers all of the expenses. Official visits cannot occur until the recruit’s senior year in high school and recruits can take a maximum of five official visits. Women’s Basketball Coach 4 thought that recruits from lower socioeconomic status backgrounds could be at a disadvantage in the recruitment process. He felt that some athletes and their families could not afford to go on unofficial visits which could hurt them in the recruitment process. He said: Um, you know when you go back to the socioeconomic thing um you know that’s maybe a difference where, where, where somebody’s parents can afford to drive them around to some schools and visit schools unofficially so they get a chance to see them. You know and a kids coming out of the neighborhood somewhere and they don’t have a dollar in their pocket, the only person that can probably take them around someplace is their AAU coach or their high school coach. And they don’t get as much of an opportunity to do the unofficial visits Women’s Soccer Coach I agreed with Women’s Basketball Coach 4. He believed it was necessary for athletes to go on unofficial visits in order to get exposure and increase the likelihood that they are recruited. 135 Interviewer: So, do you think it’s necessary for these athletes to go on all these unofficial visits in order to get to know them and see that they are truly interested in playing for that school? Women’s Soccer Coach 1: I think they have to, you know unfortunately for the recruits if they want to make sure they have an opportunity to play at the university they are looking at, they have to take initiative and get on these unofficial visits, just because the recruiting is happening in their junior year at the latest. Unfortunately, the concerns I think a lot of us have as college coaches is that there’s going to be some families in some situations that can’t afford to do that. That can’t afford to fly all over the country. If a player in Texas, because that’s a place we recruit pretty heavily ya know, that player in Texas may not can fly to California to the New Jersey area, to [city of school] to Florida. If those are the five or six schools that they are really interested in looking at during their freshman and sophomore year, they may miss out on an opportunity to actually go to that university. We’ve got some real concerns as coaches about that with what we’re doing. The problem is it’s grown so fast. It’s gotten kind of out of hand. It’s going to be very difficult to reign it back in and slow it down. Interviewer: So what happens to the athletes that can’t afford to come and visit you at your school or go to all these other schools across the country? Women’s Soccer Coach 1: I think it depends on the athletes. If it is a top level athlete, odds are it’s not going to hurt them that much. Using us as an example, if there is a top kid in another state and we know we’ve seen them enough to know they are a very top recruit for us that we are willing to offer a scholarship to, we still make that offer without their visit. The hard part is it is a little bit of a gamble because we really don’t know them very well. They might be at an age where you can’t get to know them very much. If they’re a junior, we can at least be emailing and corresponding through letter and that kind of thing. If they are a freshmen or sophomore, then you can’t have that type of communication until they begin their junior year. If they are a top-level player they will pretty much have their opportunities. It’s that player below, you know, that next level down, that may miss some opportunity. It’s the tier one players that we’re lookin at, the. . .we know we’re going after, but we also have a step below them kind of that tier two players. If we don’t get what we want from the tier one player, we may go into that second group. That’s where those kids could miss some opportunities. They're not kids that we are 100% sure on in a scholarship decision and without them visiting and really getting to know them a little bit we are probably less likely to make an offer to those kids. There’s gonna be a lot of those kind of mid- level kids that are going to miss some opportunities if they can’t afford to go. Women’s Soccer Coach I believed that the top-level recruits, the best of the best, did not need to go on unofficial visits to be recruited and offered scholarships. However, he believed it was necessary for everyone else to go on unofficial visits so the coaches could get to know them and see their drive and personality. 136 These coaches stated that unofficial visits were an important part of the recruitment process. However, they also recognized that recruits from lower socioeconomic status backgrounds are not able to go on unofficial visits. They acknowledged that those from a lower socioeconomic status could not afford to travel to the different universities to meet with the coaches and see the university. Thus, those from a lower socioeconomic status were at a disadvantage in the recruitment process and could not gain access to an environment that those from a higher socioeconomic status have access to. Afiording camps and tournaments. A strong topic of conversation was athletes attending summer camps and tournaments. The coaches admitted that these camps were essential in order to be identified by coaches and maintain themselves on the radar. However, similar to the problem of unofficial visits, how can athletes afford to attend all of these camps and tournaments? Volleyball Coach 2 stated that she felt athletes were paying upwards of $900 to attend some of the top tournaments in the country. She was asked how athletes can afford to go to these events. She responded: Well, they are paying a good 3 to 5 thousand dollars a club season to be in it for each parent. So, by the time they are done with it they have paid for that college or at least a couple years of it. So they have invested into their daughter to make sure she is good enough to play at the college level. So they have made a huge investment. What is happening is that it is becoming a middle to upper class sport, and that's what is happening to a lot of sports really because they are getting so expensive to do. Volleyball Coach 1 felt similarly to Volleyball Coach 2. He even went on to say that the cost of volleyball and attending the various club events and tournaments were eliminating people from the sport. He stated: 137 I think that’s difficult and I think it has different effects. It can eliminate peOple from the sport, if, uh because of, you know, economic reasons. It’s prohibiting and that’s just the way our sport has gone, partly because there’s no city league sports level or volleyball level, urn, that uh, you know, there are lots of kids who don’t play for the reason to go to college, there are lots of kids who play to play. In other sports, especially soccer, there’s a wide array of opportunities for young people to play that we don’t have that in volleyball for some reason. Tournaments and club events are not the only additional costs that recruits and their parents have to endure during the recruitment process. The coaches discussed their beliefs about the importance of attending summer sport camps and how recruits and their families handle these expenses. Women’s Soccer Coach 2 believed that attending summer sport camps were beneficial for athletes who have a strong desire to attend a certain university, especially if that athlete has not gone through the American club system. He felt attending summer camps: Women’s Soccer Coach 2: Certainly helps. We had a kid that was here just this past week with us uh that’s a Canadian that we hadn’t seen enough to make a decision on. So her dad flew her down here for us to look at her for a week and after, uh, watching her play for a week here we decided we were going to recruit her and we made her an offer. So some kids you don’t get to see as often, like a Canadian, uh who don’t go through the American ODP system and sometimes they don’t make the club events of the typical American kid is playing in, so the camp for us is certainly a way for us to uh recruit kids who we know want to come here, uh, ‘cause certainly if a kid is coming to your camp they have an interest in your school. Interviewer: So, then how do athletes from not the most affluent background get to all these different camps? Women’s Soccer Coach 2: Um, to be completely honest, um, most of the athletes, uh, that are playing the game are affluent in women’s soccer but we had this one girl that is not that we’ve identified and we’re actively recruiting that was sponsored actually through her club and into the Olympic development events even though her family couldn’t help her financially. So, I think there are a lot of very good hearted people uh and youth soccer leaders that I can appreciate that not all the girls in their communities can afford to go to all of these tournaments across the country and Olympic development events. 138 Football Coach 2 understood that not everyone was able to attend summer sport camps. However, he felt his hands were tied because of NCAA rules that prohibit offering discounted rates to athletes from a lower socioeconomic status background. When asked how athletes from lower socioeconomic status backgrounds afford to attend these camps, he responded: Well that's tough. You know, I think that you've got a lot of uh, uh, uh people out there that will help a kid you know through a various high school booster organization or send a kid through camp thing, things like that. I think all those uh all those programs are worthwhile to help a kid from maybe disadvantaged background you know to do that. As an NCAA institution, we can't, you know, we can't do any of that. We can't offer, you know, cut rates to maybe the disadvantaged kids and I think that's unfortunate, but, you know, that's the rules so, you know, I think that I think the high schools take a look at that and ones that have the kids that come from maybe lower socioeconomic backgrounds can find ways to get kids involved. Football Coach 3 agreed that it was difficult for the athletes from lower socioeconomic status families to attend these camps. However, he felt that these athletes were allowed a discounted rate if they came with a number of other athletes from their high school. He stated: It’s very difficult. Some places can do, if a school can bring 8-10 kids they can give them a group rate. And then cut the price down if he’s bringing more than 8- 10 kids. But they don’t get out to as many. And that really depends on what you’re listing as a cost too. You know that, but a lot of high school coaches uh will take their kids and transport their kids and try to help costs that way. And if you can get a group of kids from one high school, a significant number of them, then you can maybe get a discounted rate. But in the long run, it’s just, that doesn’t work all the time. Football Coach 5 also addressed the high cost of attending summer sport camps. He also went on to discuss whether or not he believes recruits who cannot afford to go to these camps have the same opportunity to be recruited and obtain a scholarship. He remarked: 139 Football Coach 5: We do have that issue a lot and those kids unfortunately don’t make it to camp because uh, it gets too expensive. I know that I had that problem when I was coming out. My mother couldn’t afford to do that. You do eliminate kids that way because they just can’t afford to do it. I have come across situations where their high school coach will pay for it. The high school coach really cares about their kid, um, getting that opportunity and understands their financial situation. I have seen coaches who will pay for that kid and they’ll take that kid around the country to make sure he gets evaluated but, but yeah that that is definitely an issue no question about it. Interviewer: So do you think that the kids who can’t afford to go to camp still have the same opportunity as everybody else to be recruited and obtain a scholarship and play? Football Coach 5: No, no they can’t have that, the same opportunity. If they can’t get there, it’s a problem because we do have to charge. I can’t say we can’t but we don’t do it for free. So no, they will not have the same opportunity to be evaluated and I guess they, they, uh, they can get a scholarship before they get to camp but if we need to see a kid and evaluated him it happens every year I know I will have a handful of kids I know who can’t afford to come to camp especially kids that are in [name of another state]. They just can’t do it. Mom can’t, they just can’t get a hotel and things like that. That is tough. That is definitely tough. Football Coach 5 felt that recruits do get eliminated from coaches recruiting lists because they do not attend summer camps. Further, he felt that those athletes from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are at a disadvantage in the recruitment process because they do not have access to the same exposure and opportunities as their peers from higher socioeconomic backgrounds. Socioeconomic status does play a part in the recruitment process. After speaking with the coaches in this study, there is no way to deny this fact. Recruits from a lower socioeconorrric background do not have access to the same resources and arenas as their peers from wealthier families. Therefore, it appears that, while it may not be overt, the recruitment process can exclude recruits based on social class. Thus it seems that as the current recruitment process stands, it enables those from higher socioeconomic status families to get recruited and obtain scholarships, while those from lower socioeconomic status backgrounds to not have the same opportunities. 140 Summary The final theme, sociocultural issues and access, dealt with geography, gender, race, and socioeconomic issues within the recruitment process. The coaches may have felt differently about these sociological issues, however, it was clear that these differences could affect whether an athlete is identified for recruitment or not. The role of geography in recruiting varied between the coaches. Some coaches stated that they did used different methods to recruit athletes based upon their geographic location. There were coaches that attempted to recruit athletes who lived close in proximity to their university. For instance, Wrestling Coach I felt that if be recruited an athlete who was from a city or state far away from his university, that athlete may have a difficult time adjusting to his new environment. Thus, he tried to recruit athletes who were from hometowns close in proximity to his school. On the other hand, there were coaches who attempted to recruit athletes from all over the country. For instance, Men’s Soccer Coach I thought that recruiting athletes from all over the country added to the richness of his team. He stated that he actively tried to recruit athletes from different geographical regions because he felt it would enhance the diversity on his team. Geography was not the only sociocultural issue that emerged in this study. While it was hard to gain a comparison based on gender, this study did illuminate some gender issues that occur during the recruitment process. According to Men’s and Women’s Track and Field Coach 1, there were gender differences in the conversations he had with the recruits. He recalled that the female athletes were more interested in talking about school dances and dresses, while the male athletes wanted to discuss video games. 141 Women’s Basketball Coach 4 took this even one step further by saying female athletes made more “emotional’ decisions and male athletes made well thought out decisions. In this conversation, it was clear that Women’s Basketball Coach 4 valued the way the men would make decisions because it was based upon tangible things, such as playing time, tournament appearances, etc. The emotional way he perceived women to make decisions was not valued. Similar to the discussions about gender, racial and ethnic differences in the recruitment process were also explored. While ethnicity often refers to culture, the way the coaches in this study used it, it referred to skin color. This is an important distinction to make when examining the coaches comments. With that in mind, most of the coaches in this study did not believe race played a part in any aspect of the recruiting process. However, five of the coaches did offer their beliefs on the topic. Two of the five coaches who addressed the topic of race and the recruitment process felt that race did not affect their sport. This was because their sports, swimming and baseball, were very racially homogenous. Their beliefs mirror the statistics, especially in collegiate sport. However, some of the coaches in track and field and football did feel that race impacted the recruitment process. Specifically this occurred when coaches were recruiting players for certain positions. Football Coach 1, a white coach, discussed how he would never recruit a white athlete to play the position of comerback because he believed African American athletes were faster. This practice is known as stacking. Stacking occurs when racially integrated teams are segregated by position. While this modern day version of stack is more subtle than in the past, it does occur. Coaches are 142 not keeping African American or Caucasian athletes off of their teams. Instead they are steering them into certain positions that are in line with the racial stereotypes that accompany each race. Finally, socioeconomic status plays a large role in the recruitment process. The coaches suggested that in order to be seen and identified for recruitment, an athlete should be on an AAU or club team. This was the arena where coaches went to in order to identify talent. If an athlete could not afford to participate on one of these teams, then they were at a disadvantage in terms of getting recruited. Another arena where coaches identified athletes was through summer sport camps. Majority of the coaches understood that it could be difficult for those from lower socioeconomic status backgrounds to attend these camps. However, they did not have any solutions to this problem. The problem of access to the arenas in which coaches recruit illuminates the problem of social class in our society. While socioeconomic disparities are not obvious like gender or race, they are just as prevalent and damaging. After interviewing the coaches in this study, it is clear that those from higher socioeconomic backgrounds can have access to the arenas where coaches recruit, which may increase the likelihood of being offered an athletic scholarship. Consequently, athletes from a lower socioeconomic status background may not have the same opportunity to be identified and offered an athletic scholarship. Thus, class disparities are reproduced. 143 Division I coaches. Through interviews with 25 head and assistant coaches, insight was gained into what these coaches believed about different aspects of the recruitment ’ process. The coaches discussed everything from where they go to identify athletes, how they recruit, what they think about the rules involved in the recruitment process to how differences in race, gender, and socioeconomic status affect the recruitment process. recruiting process, ethics and rules, and sociocultural issues and access. In this chapter, these themes and the findings are interpreted through answering the research questions. Further, the limitations of the study, implications for practice, and suggestions for future CHAPTER 7 Discussion The purpose of this study was to examine the recruiting practices of NCAA The participants’ perceptions and beliefs were categorized into three themes: the research are discussed. Assessing the Findings There were eight research questions that guided the questions asked during the interviews with the participants. These research questions were: 1. 2. How do college coaches describe the context of the recruiting process? Where do coaches locate the athletes they intend to recruit? Are there gender, racial/ethnic, and/or socioeconomic differences in the recruitment process? How do parents, athletes, and coaches impact the recruitment process? How does the pressure to win impact the recruitment process? 144 6. How are athletes recruited differently in different geographic regions (urban, suburban, rural, location in the United States)? 7. How are athletes recruited differently by sport? 8. How do ethical issues, technology, and other social issues and dilemmas impact the recruitment process? Each of these research questions will be discussed and interpreted in the order they appear above. How do college coaches describe the context of the recruiting process? All of the coaches in this study had many positive and negative things to say about the recruitment process and some of their perceptions of recruiting varied greatly. Something that was consistent across every interview was that the coaches all stated that they enjoyed the recruitment process. They enjoyed meeting potential recruits and their families and forming relationships with the athletes they end up recruiting. Further, the coaches loved when a recruit chose their school and they “won” the recruit. Coaches are in a very competitive business, thus “winning” recruits made the coaches feel like they won the competition. The competitive fire of the coaches was not relegated to the playing field. The coaches were competitive in all aspects of their business, including recruiting. While there were differences among the coaches in their perceptions of the pressure that surrounds their job and program, the coaches all articulated their enjoyment of forming relationships throughout the recruitment process. Overall, there was agreement in that fact that coaches spent endless hours working to identify and recruit athletes, but they felt it was worth it in the end and recognized the importance of 145 recruiting the best athletes to their university in order to build the best possible team and win on the playing field. The coaches consistently mentioned that the recruitment process was filled with rules. However, the reviews of these rules by the coaches were mixed. There were coaches who believed the rules were there to protect the recruits and coaches should follow these rules to the letter. They felt that it was important to win the recruit but it had to be done ethically and in accordance to the NCAA rules. Any deviation from the rules set forth by the NCAA should be considered rule breaking. Other coaches felt that there was the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. Men’s Basketball Coach 5 discussed innocent mistakes that were not meant maliciously but could happen due to miscommunication between coaches concerning things like phone calls to recruits. He believed something such as one extra call made to a recruit due to a miscommunication should not be treated as rule breaking since it was not done purposefully. While some coaches may break rules inadvertently, others felt that some coaches knowingly break NCAA rules. Volleyball Coach 5 felt that coaches sometimes communicate with athletes more than the allotted number of times. Further, she believed that these coaches were never or rarely punished for their actions. Football Coach 1 had a more severe view of rule breaking. He believed that the rule breaking stemmed from a lack of knowledge about all of the rules or because the coaches believed the rules were “stupid.” He felt that the pressure to win was so intense that coaches feel the need to resort to rule breaking or unethical behaviors in order to gain an edge and win the recruit. 146 The problem of rule breaking in collegiate sports is not a new phenomenon. The dilemma of whether or not to follow the rules has been around for decades. Jim Aiken, head football coach of the University of Oregon during the 1950’s, was quoted as saying, “If you have to choose between breaking the rules and losing games, wouldn’t it be better to break the rules?” He followed that statement up with “If you lose your games you’re certain to be fired. If you break the rules, you have to get caught to be fired” (quoted in Davies, 1994, p. 27.) This mentality can still be seen in athletics today. A current and prime example of a coach who broke the rules is Kelvin Sampson, the Indiana University men’s basketball coach. While as the University of Oklahoma, Sampson and his staff were reprimanded by the NCAA for making 577 illegal phone calls to recruits between 2000-2004. Sampson was found to have made 233 of those phone calls himself. The punishment for the “deliberate” rule breaking included: Oklahoma being placed on probation through May 24, 2008; a reduction in Oklahoma’s scholarships in men's basketball from 13 to 11 for 2005-06 and from 13 to 12 in 2006-07; and a reduction in the number of permissible calls to potential recruits in July following their junior year in high school from three to one (O’Toole & Marot, 2006). Some of these penalties transferred to Indiana University when Sampson accepted the job there. The penalties that transferred included the reduction in permissible phone calls and number of off-campus recruiting days Sampson was allowed to go on. Further, a committee at Indiana University ruled that Sampson was prohibited from making recruiting phone calls and recruiting off-campus for a period of one year (O’Toole & Marot, 2006). 147 During February, 2008, Sampson and Indiana University were notified that the NCAA was investigating Sampson’s alleged violation of the restrictions for his violations at the University of Oklahoma. Specifically the NCAA alleged that “from March 29, 2006, through July 31, 2007, Indiana University, Bloomington (Indiana), and members of the men’s basketball staff failed to comply with the penalties assed by the NCAA Division I Comrrrittee on Infractions” (NCAA, 2008, p. 1). Specifically Sampson and his assistant coaches were charged with making impermissible phone calls and lying to NCAA and Indiana University officials. In the midst of these allegations and the investigation, Sampson resigned on February 22, 2008. There is a pattern here of consistent rule breaking by Sampson and his assistant coaches during the recruitment process. By making excessive phone calls, Sampson potentially gained an edge in the recruitment process. This chronic behavior may have a trickle down effect and cause coaches he is recruiting against to also engage in rule breaking in order to stay competitive. Acts, like the one Sampson is accused of committing, cause a cycle of rule breaking that continues to escalate from year to year in the recruitment process. Overall, the coaches described the context of the recruitment process as very time consuming and vital to the success of their program. The coaches also demonstrated their competitiveness in the recruitment process by discussing their desire to “win” a recruit. Not only was the coach winning the recruit for his program, but he was preventing his competitors from adding that athlete to their roster. Further, the issue of rule breaking was discussed by many of the coaches. Most coaches felt that when other coaches broke the rules it was not done maliciously but in order to keep up with all of the other coaches 148 who were perceived to be breaking rules. Through interviews with the coaches, it became clear that the recruitment process is extremely complicated and constantly changing. Thus, coaches had a difficult time keeping up with all of the changes that occur within the recruitment process. Where do coaches locate the athletes they intend to recruit? The coaches in this study believed that it was essential to recruit the best athletes in order to have success on the playing field. Therefore, they felt a crucial aspect of their job was to know where to go to identify the best athletes. Majority of the coaches stated that they primarily identified athletes through the AAU and club system or festival and tournament events. The coaches believed that these events allowed them to see the most elite athletes in their sport in one place, which allowed for a wise use of their recruiting budgets. There were some coaches, however, who admitted that, while they identified athletes for recruitment primarily from AAU and/or club events, they did not feel participation on an AAU or club team was necessary in order to be identified for recruitment. The coaches who discussed this believed that being on an AAU or club team was advantageous because of the increase in exposure, but they thought that if an athlete was good enough to play on a Division I team then they would get recruited. In essence, they coaches believed someone would hear about that athlete if he or she were good enough. This belief is consistent with the previous research findings by Paule and Renn (2006). The assertion that it did not matter when sports were played in terms of recruiting for collegiate athletics because Division I coaches do not recruit athletes for their teams 149 from high school sports teams proved to be true. In the Paule and Renn study, current and former athletes and coaches stated that AAU and club sports teams are where Division I coaches are identifying and recruiting athletes to fill their rosters. However, there was no empirical evidence to back up this claim until now. However, this study also presented a new, previously unidentified arena in which coaches identified athletes. According to some of the coaches, including Women’s Soccer Coach 2, summer sports camps that the universities run were a great place to identify athletes, especially younger athletes. Since coaches are identifying and getting verbal commitments earlier and earlier from athletes, they viewed these camps as a great way to gain insight into a player. Further, they were able to work with them closely and not violate any NCAA rules. While there were some coaches that mentioned using summer sport camps as tools to identify potential recruits, other coaches felt that this was nothing more than a money making operation for universities. Coaches, like Men’s Basketball Coach 1, believed that there was no way to predict an athlete’s future success based on a camp. As a result, he felt these camps were run as a way to make extra money for the coaching staff and as a service to the community. Throughout all of the interviews, not one of the coaches stated that they identified athletes for recruitment through high school sports. Some of the coaches did mention using high school athletic contests as a way to keep in contact with the athlete and continue expressing interest in that athlete. The coaches understood that athletes like feeling wanted, so they would attend the athlete’s high school games in order to continue showing interest in an attempt to win that recruit. This is consistent with the findings of 150 Paule and Renn (2006). High school sports can be played in any season because coaches are not using this arena to identify athletes they intend to recruit. This finding is in direct conflict to what the Communities for Equity argued in their case against the Michigan High School Athletic Association. Communities for Equity believed that placing female sports in the non-traditional seasons would cause girls to be overlooked during the recruitment process. They argued that female athletes in the state of Michigan would receive: Less recruitment opportunities as a result of NCAA recruiting restrictions that limit the ability of women's college basketball coaches to recruit during the fall, but not the winter. This means that colleges outside Michigan cannot evaluate or contact Michigan girls during much of the fall season even though Michigan girls are virtually the only ones playing basketball at that time. Less scholarship opportunities, due to the fact that the National Letter of Intent dates for high school athletes to sign for their college scholarships, occur before Michigan girls even start their senior seasons in volleyball and soccer. (Communities for Equity, 2007) However, according to the coaches in this study, when sports are played in high school would have no affect on their recruiting of an athlete. Thus, athletes would not be at a disadvantage in recruiting or receive less scholarship opportunities due to playing their sport in a nontraditional Season. The concern that arises from these results is that the arenas where coaches are initially identifying athletes for recruitment (AAU teams, club teams, tournaments, and summer sport camps) all cost money on part of the athlete and his or her family. Being a 151 member of an AAU or club team can cost upward of $500 when all of the costs are accounted (Don Swanson, personal communication, March 21, 2007). Since these teams and events are the primary sites coaches go to identify athletes, one can assume that it is crucial to be on one of these teams if that athlete hopes to be recruited by a Division I coach. The coaches in this study primarily identified athletes for recruitment out of the AAU and club systems. Their rationale for recruiting out of these arenas was because they could see a greater number of elite athletes than if they went to a high school event. Further, the coaches felt recruiting at AAU and a club event were a better way to use their limited recruiting budgets. However, the costs of belonging to one of these teams can be upwards of a few hundred dollars each season. As a result, those athletes who do not have the financial resources to be a member of one of these teams may be overlooked in the recruitment process. Are there gender, racial/ethnic, and/or socioeconomic differences in the recruitment process? Gender. Gender was difficult to measure in this study because most of the coaches coached only men or only women. Therefore, it was hard to compare if the athletes were recruited differently based upon their sex. However, there were two coaches who were able to provide insight into this question. Men’s and Women’s Swimming Coach 1 and Men’s and Women’s Track and Field Coach 1 discussed differences they had experienced when recruiting young men and women. Men’s and Women’s Swimming Coach I believed that women expected more attention during the recruitment process than men because there were more 152 scholarship opportunities available for them. Thus he believed the women felt if one coach did not give them enough attention they could move onto a different school. In contrast, men’s swimming did not have as many scholarship opportunities so the men could not move on to the next school if they did not feel they wanted more attention. Men’s and Women’s Track and Field Coach I felt the differences were most noticeable when he had conversations with the recruits. He stated that the female recruits were more talkative and wanted to discuss things like Homecoming and dresses, whereas the male recruits were more apt to talk about video games. Thus, he felt he had to have different conversations with the recruits which translated into recruiting the athletes differently. Men’s and Women’s Track and Field Coach 1 did state that he believed men and women were looking for the same things out of the recruitment process. For example, he felt both male and female athletes were looking for a place they fit in and could contribute to the team. However, Men’s and Women’s Track and Field Coach 1 also felt females were looking more at the relationships that they form than the male athletes. Further perceptions of differences in male and female recruits were illuminated when Women’s Basketball Coach 4, who had previously coached men, stated that women were more “emotional” than men. He felt female recruits made decisions based on hype and their gut. Male recruits, on the other hand, made decisions on tangibles, such as media exposure, times on television, wins, players at the next level, and league championships. This type of thinking reproduces the gender ideologies and stereotypes that permeate American society. Gender ideology influences how individuals think of themselves. In American society, “sports are sites for reaffirming beliefs about male- 153 female difference and valorizing masculine characteristics. At the same time, women’s sports often are marginalized because they are not send as ‘real’ or as good as men’s sports” (Coakley, 2007, p. 265). In this study, some of the coaches reproduced gender ideology through their statements about the differences in recruiting male and female athletes. It was suggested that men make smart, well-thought out decisions, while women are emotional and cannot possibly make logical decisions based on facts. Women make decisions based on if they liked the players on the team or a gut feeling. These stereotypes, based on no empirical evidence, reproduce gender ideologies that place men ahead of women. Gender ideologies were also present in the discussion about the role the sex of the coach plays in the recruitment process. Some of the coaches in this study believed that the sex of the coach could also factor into the recruitment process. Women’s Basketball Coach 2 felt that female athletes were more comfortable playing for a male coach because she believed majority of the recruits’ previous coaches were male. Women’s Basketball Coach 2’s belief that female athletes would prefer to play for men cannot be substantiated in this study. However, the perception that female athletes are used to playing for men is consistent with the trends of coaches of female athletic teams. There is the perception that “that female athletes who have never had a female coach believe that male coaches are better than female coaches. Male and female athletes who have been taught to devalue the athletic abilities of females may really believe that females cannot coach as well as males” (Women’s Sports Foundation, 2000, n.p.). Simply stated, the perception of men as superior coaches is a socially constructed phenomenon and not something that is naturally occurring. 154 .. The percentage of male and female coaches in high schools and colleges may also lead to the perception of male superiority in coaching. Eighty percent of all high school teams are coached by men (Women’s Sports Foundation, 2000). Further, according to the Acosta and Carpenter (2008) study, 42.8% of female teams were coached by women and 57.2% were coached by men at the collegiate level. In fact, “the percentage of female head coaches for women’s teams in 2008 (42.8%) is lower than at anytime in history except for 2006 (42.4%)” (Acosta & Carpenter, 2008, p. 27). Judging from these numbers, the perception that females prefer to play for male coaches may be because that is all they have ever known. Race. The issue of race was difficult to explore because most of the coaches did not perceive race to be an issue in collegiate recruiting. Only five of the 25 coaches in this study shared their perceptions about the role of race in the recruitment process. Baseball Coach I felt that his team did not have much racial diversity because it was hard to recruit a minority athlete to an all white team. Men’s and Women’s Swimming Coach I believed the lack of diversity on his team was due to the lack of racial diversity in the sport as a whole. His perception reflects the national trends in swimming. A questionnaire was administered by USA Swimming and mailed to its members nationwide. Of the 140,000 members who identified their race in their responses, only 1% identified as African American (White, 2005). In contrast to Baseball Coach 1 and Men’s and Women’s Swimming Coach 1, Men’s and Women’s Track and Field Coach I believed that due to the variety of events in his sport, he was able to attract athletes of different races to his team. He believed this 155 was a strength of his program and the diversity on his team was an asset in recruiting and competing in the sport. Football Coach 5, an African American man, believed that black and white athletes were recruited differently based upon their skin color. He stated that the differences in recruitment came when the coaches were selling the university to the recruits. He recalled witnessing and hearing about other coaches attempting to sell their university by focusing on the African American girls on campus, African American fraternities, and the make up of the general study body. These were things that the coaches did not address when recruiting white athletes. Football Coach 1, a white man, also agreed that race could affect the recruitment process. He stated the race of an athlete could impact whether a coach recruits an athlete to play a certain position at his university. For example, he stated he would never recruit a white comerback to play football on his team because he believed African American athletes were faster. The type of thinking that Football Coach 1 exhibited is consistent with many of the stereotypes that exist surrounding black and white athletes. Kane (1971) argued that the average black athlete has greater physical athletic traits due to the transmitting of genetic material from the strongest men after decades of enslavement. Kane believed it was the passing of these traits that led to African American athletes being superior to white athletes. Further, he suggested that white athletes were intellectually superior to black athletes. Edwards (1973) argued against Kane’s article and offered another explanation to black athlete’s athletic superiority. He stated that surviving slavery had as much to do 156 with intellectual and strength of character as it did physical attributes. Thus, the superior intellect and character would have passed from generation to generation which would contradict the notion that white athletes are intellectually superior but would be consistent with the idea that blacks are superior athletically than whites. Stone, Lynch, Sjomeling, and Darley (1999) contend that the “debate over the relationship between race and sports performance indicates that many people think dispositionally about what causes successful performances in sports, but the dispositions attributed to successful Black and White athletes are very different” (p. 1214). This contention explains why black athletes are labeled as naturally gifted and athletically superior, while white athletes work hard and are intellectually superior. These labels are still present today. Even though the concept of race is not biologically valid (Orrri & Winant, 1994), Football Coach 1’s statements show that the contradictory views of race and athletic ability, as outlined by Kane (1971) and Edwards (1973) are still present in society. If coaches are judging athletes simply based upon the athlete’s skin color, then many talented athletes may be overlooked because they are not as fast as their black counterparts or as intelligent as their white counterparts. Moreover, recruiting athletes for certain positions based largely upon their skin color can lead to stacking. Stacking is the process in which racially integrated teams are segregated by position. Often in football, “whites are more likely to play on offense and at thinking and leadership positions that more often detemiine the game’s outcome. African Americans overwhelmingly play on defense and at positions that require physical characteristics such as size, strength, speed, and quickness” (Eitzen, 2006, p. 24). Football Coach 1’3 157 statements about recruiting solely black athletes to play comerback illustrates that stacking is still occurring in collegiate sport. Recruiting athletes for certain positions based on race was not the only place race was present during the recruitment process. For some coaches, the race of the athlete could impact the selling points coaches used during the recruitment process. Football Coach I discussed how he changed his approach because he believed white and black guys were interested in different things. For instance, he mentioned discussing hunting and fishing with white athletes and African American organizations and dance clubs with the black athletes. This philosophy of recruiting athletes differently depending on race is dangerous and reproduces stereotypes. By lumping all white athletes into one category and all black athletes into another category, these coaches are saying that all white athletes enjoy the same things (i.e., hunting and fishing) and all black athletes are the same (i.e., enjoying dance clubs and only African American organizations). By recruiting in this manner, coaches are disregarding that everyone is different and just because they have a certain skin color, it does not mean they are interested in the stereotypical things of their race. This is another illustration of racial stereotype threat. Ironically, coaches who use the individualistic recruiting approach are actually recruiting based on stereotypes and not on that actual individual. Socioeconomics. All of the coaches in this study either directly or indirectly discussed the role of socioeconomic status and access in the recruitment process. It was suggested that while it was not necessary, participation on an AAU or club team was extremely important in order to be identified for recruitment. These were the arenas 158 coaches went to in order to look for athletes to recruit. However, there is a fee required to be a member of these teams, which can hinder athletes from a lower socioeconomic status background from partaking in these teams. Thus, those from higher socioeconomic backgrounds can have access to the arenas where coaches recruit, which could increase their chance of being offered an athletic scholarship. Consequently, athletes from a lower socioeconomic status background may not have the same opportunity to be identified and offered an athletic scholarship. Another arena where coaches identified athletes was through summer sport camps. Most of the coaches in this study recognized that it could be difficult for those from lower socioeconomic status backgrounds to attend these camps. However, they did not have any solutions to this problem. The coaches stated that they could not do anything to help the athletes from lower socioeconomic status backgrounds because NCAA rules prohibit extending complementary camp registrations to any athlete. The problem of access to the arenas in which coaches recruit illuminates the problem of social class in our society. The problem of economic inequality in athletics can appear hidden because it is not obvious like gender or race. According to Coakley (2006), “many people believe that sports and sport participation are open to all people and that inequalities relate to money, position, and influence don’t spill over into the organized games we play and watch” (p. 323). Further, issues of access are not viewed as a problem because in American society we believe in meritocracy, the belief that individuals are rewarded when their characteristics, abilities, and effort are superior to others (Coakley, 2007; Eitzen, 2006). In essence, if an athlete is talented and works hard enough then he or she will be 159 identified for recruitment and go on to play collegiate sport. Due to our belief in meritocracy, athletes who do not continue their athletic participation in college are thought to be less talented and did not work hard enough at their sport. Coakley (2007) believes that, “In a meritocracy, it is assumed that power and success are associated with strong character and smart choices, whereas failure is associated with weak character and poor choices” (p. 325). In the world of collegiate sport, success would be associated with an athlete being recruited to play Division I athletics and failure would occur when an athlete is not recruited. The problem with this type of thinking is that there are individuals who are able to gain an edge based on their socioeconomic status. For instance, those from a higher socioeconomic status background would be able to afford private lessons, participation on multiple teams, traveling for unofficial visits and summer sport camps, and so forth. These “extras” would give that athlete an advantage over someone who was unable to afford private lessons, participation on multiple teams, and traveling for unofficial visits and camps. Thus, the reality of the situation is that there are individuals who are advantaged within the current sport system. The idea that an individual’s socioeconomic status plays a role in their future success is in the stark contrast to the theory of meritocracy that states these successful individuals have strong character and made intelligent choices. Since American society values hard work and believes everyone is playing on an level playing field, the meritocracy myth is perpetuated. In Division I intercollegiate recruiting, this myth is perpetuated by the belief that “if you’re good, they’ll find you.” The perception that sport is open to everyone is further contradicted by data. McNeal (1998) found that higher socioeconomic status students participated in sport at a 160 higher rate than the students from an average socioeconomic status background, 66% compared to 56%. This study revealed inequities that exist between social classes. Furthermore, during the 2004-2005 school year there were 7,018,709 girls and boys involved in high school athletics across the United States (National Federation of State High School Associations, 2005). During the same school year, there were 389,556 athletes participating in all three divisions of collegiate athletics (Vicente, 2006). Further, there were only 158,676 Division I athletes participation in collegiate sport, which equals approximately 2.3% of those participating in high school athletics. If we are to believe that meritocracy is responsible for why some succeed and others do not, then only 2.3% of high school athletes worked hard enough to play Division I sports and everyone else did not. However, it is hard to believe that 97.7% of high school athletes are not working hard enough to succeed. If this is true and the 97.7% of high school athletes who do not continue on to play Division 1 sport are working hard and have high abilities, it is a direct contradiction to the theory of meritocracy that is so prevalent in our society. Perhaps this is why some high school athletes and their parents turn to recruiting services to help get identified by collegiate coaches. Recruiting services are used by families in the hopes that it will assist their son or daughter get identified and offered an athletic scholarship. These companies boast of getting athletes who were previously unrecruited college scholarships. Families buy into the message these companies are selling and spend hundreds and sometimes thousands of dollars on these services. Krause (2007) even discussed the benefits and usefulness of these recruiting services for athletes. 161 The results in this study are in stark contrast to what Krause (2007) states in his article. The coaches in this study stated that they do not pay attention to these services. In fact, it was said that these recruiting services are “a waste of money.” Therefore, it does not appear necessary for athletes and their families to pay to get recruited to a Division I program. This is one area in which social class does not effect whether or not an athlete is recruited. Overall, there were differences in how athletes of different genders, races, and socioeconomic backgrounds were recruited. Gender was the hardest sociological factor to measure due to the coaches’ experience in coaching only men or women. However, the coaches who had both men and women on their team did discuss differences they had experienced when recruiting young men and women. The main differences between the male and female athletes centered upon expectations from the recruiting process and the conversational topics. These differences illustrate the gender ideologies still present in American society. The racial differences that emerged in this study centered on how athletes were recruited based on their skin color. The coaches recalled stories they had heard about coaches selling their university differently to a white and black athletes. Further, the issue of stacking or recruiting athletes of a certain race for a position emerged. These discussions illustrated the racial ideologies and problems that still exist within sport. The socioeconomic status differences were exemplified in issues of access. Individuals from higher socioeconomic status backgrounds were able to afford the costs associated with AAU or club teams and travel to universities for unofficial visits and summer sport camps, all of which increase the likelihood of being identified for 162 recruitment. Consequently, class inequalities were illustrated and an argument against the theory of meritocracy emerged. How do parents, athletes, and coaches impact the recruitment process? Identifying the decision maker is a vital job for every coach. All of the coaches mentioned that they have learned how to read the athlete, his or her parents, and sometimes other coaches in order to figure out who the person is that will ultimately be making the decision where the recruit will sign. Thus, the parents, athletes, and other coaches can impact the recruiting pitch that the coach uses. The coaches stated that they will focus more on acaderrrics and safety if they felt a parent was going to be making the decision versus focusing on playing time and sport related themes if it is the athlete making the decision. The coaches also stated that they believed some parents were over involved in the recruitment process. Consequently, these parents could hinder the child’s chances of being offered a scholarship or spot on the team by their behavior. The apparent problem of parents being over involved in the recruitment process is similar to the emergence of “helicopter parents” in higher education. Helicopter parents are the “baby boomer generation of parents who hover” (Coburn, 2006, p. 9). However, this hovering cannot be too surprising given that: This generation of parents has had a hands-on approach to their children’s education from preschool through high school. Most middle-class parents have spent countless hours arranging schedules and taking their children to. sports practices and music lessons, to tutoring sessions and enrichment classes. They have been actively involved in the college admissions marathon, reviewing 163 college Web sites and viewbooks and accompanying their children on campus visits. (Coburn, 2006, p. 10) When examining the role parents have played in their child’s lives, it is not surprising that parents are very involved in the recruitment process of Division I athletics and help their child decide which school to choose. If parents of students not being recruited for a Division I athletics would help their child choose where the child will be going to school, why is it so much of a stretch to think that parents would be involved in the decision for children being recruited? While this is important for coaches to understand, it is equally as important for parents to remember they are not being recruited, their child is being recruited. Contrary to the coaches feelings about the role of parents in the recruitment process, only a few coaches mentioned the recruit’s other coach’s (either a high school, club, or AAU coach) involvement in the recruitment process. The university coaches did not feel that most of these other coaches influenced the decision making process and as a result did not have negative or hostile feelings toward their involvement. There were cases where another coach would guide the athlete through the recruitment process, and in that case, the university coach tried to sell the school to the athlete’s other coach. Regardless of who the decision maker turns out to be, it is important for parents, athletes, and coaches to remember that the athlete is the one being recruiting, not the parent or coach. The coaches in this study had mixed feelings about the role of parents in the recruitment process. Overall, the coaches believed it was important for parents to be involved in the recruitment process. However, they believed there was a difference between being involved and over involved. In fact, one coach mentioned “detesting” the 164 parent part of the recruitment process and another coach even stated that a parent can cause him to stop recruiting that athlete. These statements illustrate that it is important for both parents and athletes to show interest in the program but not be overzealous and high maintenance or coaches will move on to the next recruit. How does the pressure to win impact the recruitment process? The overwhelming response from the coaches when asked about the recruiting process was that it was one of the main aspects of their job. In fact, they suggested that recruiting could be done all day, every day. The coaches believed that recruiting was the lifeblood of their program and recruiting quality athletes was a necessity in order to win games and be competitive in their conference and sport. Along the same lines, it was necessary to have a successful program to attract the best recruits to the program. This never-endin g circle was why coaches felt tremendous pressure to win and recruit well. The coaches believed that there was both the pressure to win and recruit well. They did differ in their belief about the sources of pressure. Some of the coaches felt pressure from external sources, such as the administration, alumni, boosters, and their current team. The external pressure may be due to the fact that college sports in America are extremely popular and it is hard to separate the actions that occur on the field from the business of sport. As of 2004, college sports were a $4 billion business (Eitzen, 2006). The tremendous amount of money in collegiate athletics can definitely contribute to the pressure everyone involved in athletics faces. Other coaches did not pay attention to any external sources of pressure and instead discussed the pressure they placed upon themselves to win and recruit well. These 165 coaches believed that the pressure they placed upon themselves was their motivation to recruit well and win games. It is important to note that coaches in different sports and conferences described pressure differently. While analyzing the interview transcripts, it became clear that the coaches in the “Big-Time” sport conferences felt more external pressure than the coaches of the so-called “mid-major” conferences. The coaches of the “Big-Time” conferences discussed that the pressure to win from the administration, alumni, and boosters was extremely high and they believed that their job was tied to their success on the playing field. On the other hand, the coaches of the “mid-major” conferences did feel pressure but they did not feel the pressure of their job being tied to their team’s performance on the playing field. This was illustrated when Women’s Basketball Coach 4 stated: You know, I think at each school it’s specific on what the expectation and the expectations of the athletic director that ultimately make the hiring and firing decisions but I would say that [name of university] expects to put a winning product on the floor and provides that opportunity but if I came in 3rd or I came in IS” I don’t think that that you know that it would essentially cost me my job. Similarly to the differences between the conferences, the coaches of different sports also felt different levels of pressure. Through their statements, the coaches of football and men’s basketball teams appeared to feel the most pressure to win in order to keep their job secure. This pressure could be tied to these sports being the so-called revenue-producing sports for the schools and the sports that receive the most attention in the media. 166 Every coach stated that the pressure to win impacted the recruitment process. They felt that they had to recruit the best athletes in order to field the best team. Since the coaches believed they had to win in order to keep their jobs, the pressure to recruit well and win were essential aspects of theirjobs. How are athletes recruited differently in different geographic regions (urban, suburban, rural, location in the United States)? The coaches had different perspectives surrounding the role of geography in the recruitment process. Some coaches stated that they did uSe different techniques to recruit athletes depending on their geographic location. There were coaches that tried to recruit athletes who lived relatively close to their university. For instance, Wrestling Coach I felt that if he recruited an athlete who was from a city or state far away from his institution, that athlete may have a hard time acclimating to his new climate. Therefore, he primarily recruited athletes who were from cities close in proximity to his school. However, not every coach attempted to recruit athletes who were from the same geographical region as their university. Coaches, such as Men’s Soccer Coach I, thought that recruiting athletes from all over the country added to the richness of his team. He stated that he actively tried to recruit athletes from different geographical regions to enhance the diversity on his team. The coaches felt that they were not the only ones taking geographical location into account during the recruitment process. The coaches believed that where their school was located could influence a recruit to choose to go to their school over another institution. Football Coach I felt that since his school was located in the North, he had a hard time attracting athletes from down South because it was so cold. The geography of 167 the university could be just as important to the recruitment process as the geography of the athlete’s hometown. Geography was not only important to athletes living in the United States but athletes from Canada and abroad. Ice Hockey Coach 1 did not believe that an athlete’s geographical location would be a problem or concern during the recruitment process. In fact, he spoke about seeking out athletes from the United States and Canada. Ice Hockey Coach 1’s experiences are similar to that of coaches in other sports. Wilson and Wolverton (2008) argued that the coaches are recruiting athletes from foreign countries because these coaches do not think there is enough elite talent to field championship teams. They believed that evidence of this phenomenon is obvious when one looks at the statistics and reported that: The proportion of foreign players in many Division 1 sports has doubled since the beginning of the decade. In tennis, 30 percent of the male players were from outside the United States in 2005-6, as were 23 percent of male ice-hockey players, 14 percent of female golfers, 13 percent of all skiers, and 10 percent of male soccer players. (p. A27) These statistics illustrate that the geographical boundaries of the United States are not keeping coaches or athletes from seeking the best talent or institution. The need to win is driving coaches to recruit players from foreign countries (Wilson & Wolverton, 2008). However, not every coach can travel abroad to identify athletes, so they are relying on scouting services (not recruiting services), the Internet and word of mouth to find the players they should recruit (Wilson & Wolverton, 2008). Therefore, coaching has 168 moved from recruiting within the boundaries of the United States to an international process. Geography certainly plays a role in the recruitment process; however, the role it played differed for the coaches. Some coaches preferred recruiting athletes in close proximity to their university, while other coaches thought recruiting athletes from across the country added to the diversity and richness of their team. Further, the recruitment process has turned into an international process for certain sports, specifically ice hockey. While the role of geography is not the same across the board, it is obvious that it does play a part in the recruitment process. How are athletes recruited difi‘erently by sport? After speaking with the coaches, it did not appear that athletes were recruited differently in different sports. All of the coaches mentioned identifying athletes from either AAU or club teams or summer sports camps. After they were identified and put on the list of athletes to recruit, the coaches reported using technology in a similar manner and tried to sell the school to the athletes by emphasizing their strengths as a program. These strengths included a winning tradition, facilities, and acaderrrics available at that university. The real difference in recruiting was when a coach chose to change his or her approach based upon the athlete he or she was recruiting. While not all of the coaches stated that they took an individualized approach to recruiting, those who did take this approach felt it was necessary because each athlete is looking for something different while going through the recruiting process. The coaches have to find a way to meet the recruit’s needs in order to win that recruit. l 69 Overall, athletes were recruited in a similar manner across all sports. Coaches initially identified athletes at AAU or club events or summer sports camps. However, the major difference in the recruiting of athletes was the individualized or consistent recruiting approaches used by the coaches. These approaches dictated how the athlete would be recruited and were responsible for any differences in the recruitment of athletes. How do ethical issues, technology, and other social issues and dilemmas impact the recruitment process? Ethical issues. The main ethical issue that arose from the interviews with the coaches was negative recruiting. Negative recruiting is when coaches try to influence a recruit to choose their university over the others that are recruiting the athlete. They do this by comparing their school to the others, discussing hearsay about the other school to the recruit, or using stereotypes or personal attacks to influence the recruit. The problem with negative recruiting is that there is no clear definition for it. Many of the coaches defined negative recruiting differently. Some felt if a coach said anything about another school then it was considered negative recruiting. Others believed that if a coach were stating facts about another school then that was okay and it was not negative recruiting. Regardless of the definition that the coaches used to describe negative recruiting, it was clear that it is a problem in Division I recruiting. Every coach stated that he or she believed negative recruiting occurred and was a problem in their sport. After interviewing the coaches, it appears as though negative recruiting in women’s basketball gets the most personal. All five of the women’s basketball coaches stated that negative recruiting often got personal in their sport. Specifically, the negative recruiting centered on sexuality. 170 Both of the female coaches did not openly discuss the issue of sexuality but they insinuated that it was the topic of negative recruiting. On the other hand, the male coaches were upfront about this topic. The reason for this may be due to the fact that men did not have to worry about being labeled as a lesbian. The male coaches did not have to combat the stereotype that they are gay, so it was not personal to them. In contrast, the female coaches may have had to deal with sexuality stereotypes and negative recruiting surrounding this topic for quite a long time. Thus, they may have been tired of discussing the topic or did not want to give credence to this issue. The coaches in this study were not the only women’s basketball coaches to deal with lesbianism in their sport. Klimovich-Harrop (2005) discussed lesbianism as “the most discussed secret in women’s basketball” (n.p.). Vikki Krane, the Director of the Women’s studies program at Bowling Green State University, was quoted as saying lesbianism is “the open secret. Coaches use it against each other all the time” (quoted in Klimovich-Harrop, 2005, n.p.). This secret was brought to the forefront when allegations arose against Rene Portland, who was at the time the Penn State University head women’s basketball coach. She was accused of harassing players into quitting the team because she thought these women were lesbians. She did not allow lesbian athletes to play on her team (Klimovich- Harrop, 2005). While the Rene Portland scandal brought lesbianism and homophobia to the attention of the media, it is not the only example of negative recruiting. This is an issue that is more prevalent than most people think or want to admit. When recruiting athletes, coaches “allude to another school having a lesbian coach and/or gay players to drive a 171 prospect toward their school. Coaches know it is done, but many don’t want to talk about it” (Klimovich-Harrop, 2005, n.p.). Negative recruiting was not relegated solely to women’s sports. Football Coach I admitted engaging in negative recruiting while he was at his former university. Further, Charlie Weis, the head football coach of Notre Dame, has been accused of negative recruiting (Associate Press, 2006). Jamie Cumbie accused the Notre Dame Coach of continuing to recruit him after he had verbally committed to Clemson. Further, Cumbie alleged that Notre Dame criticized Clemson and stated that Notre Dame games were televised and Clemson had a horrible education. These statements would constitute negative recruiting. Weis and his staff denied these allegations (Associated Press, 2006). Negative recruiting is an increasingly popular technique used by coaches to gain an edge in the recruitment process. It may take the form of making a negative remark about the programs geographical location or, in the more seriously instances, it can become personal and perpetuate gender and sexuality stereotypes that already permeate American society. Without any regulations on the use of negative recruiting, it is appears that negative recruiting will continue to be a part of the recruitment process. Technology. The coaches in this study expressed that they felt one of the biggest changes in the recruitment process over the years has been the increase in technology. Technological advances, such as the intemet and cell phones, have become essential for the recruitment process. However, some of the coaches admitted to not being the most technologically savvy individuals. Therefore, in order to keep up with the other coaches, they had to surround themselves with assistant coaches that were knowledgeable about technology. 172 The need for technology was due to the coaches’ beliefs that young athletes today communicate primarily via technology such as cell phones and the intemet. This is illustrated when Football Coach 2 stated: I think mail is almost obsolete. I think you know if a kid gets a piece of mail it just goes in the trash because he can get the same thing on his cell phone that someone is going to text him. Uh, you know those type of things. That's how kids communicate, they all communicate that way today. I think you need to be in tune with that you know from a recruiting standpoint. And I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, I just think you have to stay up with the technology that way. The importance of technology cannot be overstated. Cell phones have become a primary source for communication. In fact, some of the coaches felt that if they did not have their cell phone on them at all times then they felt as though they were slacking in their job. Therefore, technology is essential to the recruitment process. Social issues. Early recruiting has become standard in college recruiting. Even though many coaches did not like recruiting athletes at such a young age, they felt they had to engage in early recruiting in order to keep up with the other coaches in their conference or sport. While the process of recruiting and offering athletes scholarships has sped up, there were problems associated with process. One of these problems could be that there are coaches who are now recruiting middle school athletes. Forde (2007) examined the recruitment of middle school students. In speaking about early recruiting, an anonymous coach stated that “in recruiting, it’s all about being first. If you get in on the kid in eighth grade, you’re first” (Forde, 2007, n.p.). Some of the coaches believed that the process was beginning too early and the recruits were not mature enough to make educated decisions about something this important. Thus, some of the recruits were making the wrong decision, which the coaches 173 believe could be the reason for the transfer rate increasing. Even though the coaches saw this as a problem, they were not speaking out against the practice of early recruiting. Further, what if coaches misevaluate a recruit when he is in junior high or early high school? In previous years, there have been examples of coaches misevaluating athletes. Tamir Goodman was given an early offer by the University of Maryland and then withdrew that offer because he was not evolving into the basketball player Maryland had hoped he would be (Forde, 2007). Early recruiting has become a problem for athletes and coaches. This has turned from a personal issue to a social issue because so many athletes are transferring because they chose the wrong school or coaches have rescinded offers to recruits. As a result, athletes are left without a scholarship and are uncertain about their futures. Summary of Research Questions The themes and the findings of this study were interpreted through answering the research questions. All of the coaches described the context of recruitment process as enjoyable but very time consuming. Coaches spent a great deal of their time identifying athletes to recruit. In order find these athlete, the coaches went to AAU or club events in order to see the greatest number of talented athletes at one time. Further, insight was gained into how over-involved parents, the pressure to win, and geography can all impact the recruitment process, as well as, how athletes are recruited differently in various sports. There were gender, racial, and socioeconomic differences in the recruitment process. The central difference between the male and female athletes revolved around expectations from the recruiting process and the conversational topics. The racial 174 differences that emerged in this study centered on how athletes were recruited based on their skin color. The socioeconomic status differences were exemplified in issues of access and who was able to afford to be on the teams were coaches were identifying athletes. These differences illustrate the gender, racial and social class ideologies that are still present in American society. Finally, there was an examination of the ethical issues, technology, and other social issues that are present in the recruitment process. Negative recruiting, technological advances, and early recruiting are issues that are very prevalent in the recruitment process and can potentially be troublesome for coaches and athletes. Contributions to the Research Literature Providing Empirical Evidence about the Recruitment Process The major contribution this study makes to the research literature is to provide empirical evidence about the Division I recruitment process. Prior to this study, there was little research into coaches’ perceptions and experiences in recruiting. This study provided empirical evidence into how coaches recruit, where they identify athletes for recruitment, how coaches sell their program, and how pressure affects their job. This study also provided empirical evidence surrounding the presence of gender, race, and social class ideologies that exist in the recruitment process. While it was hard to gain information on the role of gender in the recruitment process, gender ideologies were discussed in regards to how male and female athletes make decisions. It was stated that women make more emotional decisions, whereas men make well-thought out decisions. This type of thinking illustrates the gender ideologies that exist within the recruitment process. Further, it reinforces the stereotypes we have about men and women in society. 175 Racial ideologies and the recruitment process were also discussed in this study. The race of the athlete appeared to play a role in the recruitment process. Athletes were recruited differently based upon skin color. This is troubling because some of the notions and stereotypes about race that were discussed in the 1970’s are still present today despite evidence to the contrary. This study found empirical evidence that these stereotypes and ideologies are still permeating collegiate sport. Further, this study illuminated the disparities between athletes in different socioeconomic status. The coaches stated that they primarily recruit out of the club and AAU system. The problem with this could be that there is a fee required to belong to one of these teams. If an athlete is not able to afford to be on one of these teams then he or she is at a disadvantage in the recruiting process. It is harder for these athletes to be identified for recruitment, which directly contradicts the theory “if you’re good, they’ll find you.” An examination of meritocracy in the recruitment process also emerged from this study. The current system of Division I recruiting is advantageous to the individuals who are able to afford access to the arenas where coaches are recruiting (i.e., AAU and club teams). Thus, the recruitment process is not a meritocracy because being recruited is not based solely on talent and hard work. It is also based on who can afford to be on AAU and club teams in order to be seen by Division I coaches. Therefore, this study showed that meritocracy is a myth when it comes to Division I collegiate athletic recruiting. Sport Status Attainment Model The sport status attainment model (Figure 1) was created to illustrate how status attainment literature impacts athletics, the recruiting process, and the perceived value 176 placed upon sport program affiliation by athletes and coaches. The results of this study support this model. It was hypothesized that personal characteristics and background of the athlete, including SES, gender, race/ethnicity, and geographical location, and an individual’s desired occupational attainment (i.e., professional athletes, teacher, coach, and so forth) influence the individual’s selection of sport and where he or she plays that sport (i.e., high school, club, AAU). In addition, the perceived value placed upon the sport program affiliation by coaches can also impact where the athlete plays that sport. The sport in which an athlete participates can also determine the sport program affiliation of the athlete. The probability of being identified for recruitment can also affect where the athlete plays a sport. Further, the athlete’s sport program affiliation, the type of team they are currently on (high school, AAU, or club), can also have an effect on the likelihood of being identified for recruitment by collegiate coaches. Finally, the talent and skill level of the athlete will impact the sport the athlete plays and the athlete’s sport program affiliation. If an athlete is highly skilled, he or she may participate on multiple teams in that sport, which would increase the likelihood that the athlete will be identified for college recruitment. The more gifted the athlete is on the playing field the higher the likelihood that he or she is identified for recruitment. This study supports the sport status attainment model. While this study did not examine why athletes chose the sports that they are currently participating in or the social factors that led to the athlete’s sport program affiliation, it did shed light onto perceived value placed upon sport program affiliation by college coaches, likelihood of being identified for college recruitment, and sporting ability. 177 Coaches valued AAU teams, club teams, and summer sport camps as their athlete’s sport program affiliations of choice. These are the locations where the coaches went to in order to identify the athletes they were going to recruit for their athletic teams. They did not view attending high school games as an efficient method of recruiting. Therefore, it appears that it is necessary for an athlete to be on an AAU team, club team, or attend a summer sport camp in order to be identified for recruitment. Without one of these arenas, the likelihood of being identified for recruitment decreases considerably. One of the social factors that this study did address was socioeconomic status. If an athlete and his or her farme are unable to afford the costs associate with AAU or club teams or summer sporting camps, then they are at a disadvantage in the recruitment process. Further, the system appears to advantage those from a higher socioeconomic status. These individuals are able to afford to be on AAU and club teams and attend surruner sport camps, thus they are at an increased likelihood of receiving an athletic scholarship. In contrast, those who possibly need the scholarship more must figure out an alternate method for being seen by Division I coaches and recruited. However, being on an AAU or club team or attending a summer sport camp does not guarantee an athlete will be identified for recruitment or offered a scholarship. The athlete has to have the necessary skills to play Division I sports. Without these skills, it does not matter what team they play on or how many summer sport camps they attend because coaches can identify talent and will not recruit the athletes if they are not at the level the coaches need them to be. While this study did support the sport status attainment model, there was one alteration to the model that arose after reviewing the data. Given the coaches strong ~ 178 perceptions about the role of parents in the recruitment process, it is necessary to include them in the social factors portion of the model. Parents not only provide financial support to the athlete but can be responsible for directing them to participate on certain sport program affiliations (i.e. AAU or club teams). Further, parents can be an asset or detriment to their child in the recruitment process. Some of the coaches in this study remarked that they “detested” the parent part of recruiting. One coach even went as far as to say he has dropped athletes from his list of potential recruits because of that recruits parents. Given this information, it is necessary to include parents in the sport status attainment model. This model is illustrated in Figure 7. Figure 7. Sport Status Attainment Model (revised) Sporting Ability Sport played by athlete Social Factors 7 SES Gender Child’s Sport Program Aff l' t' Race/Ethnicity 1 1a Ion Geography \ P . d l Likelihood ercerve va ue ' . of bern DeSIIftd placed upon identifiid occupatronal sport program attainment affiliation by for C(fileget recrur men college coaches Parents 179 This study has validated the sport status attainment model. Through the interviews with the coaches, insight was gained into where they recruit, why they recruit from these arenas, and the likelihood of athlete’s being recruited out of various sport program affiliations. This insight can influence what teams young athletes choose to play on if they wish to continue their sport careers in college and obtain a collegiate athletic scholarship. Implications The results of this study offer the reader empirical evidence and a better understanding of the Division I intercollegiate recruitment process. These finding illustrate that the recruitment process is complex and ever changing. Thus, this study can provide insight for athletes and parents, coaches, and the NCAA Implications for Athletes and Parents One of the primary findings in this study is that it is vitally important that athletes be a part of an AAU or club team at a young age in order to get on the radar of college coaches. While the coaches did not say it was necessary, participation on one of these teams gets an athlete increased exposure to collegiate coaches. Thus, their chances of being identified for recruitment and offered a scholarship increase dramatically with participation on an AAU or club team. The reason for this is the coaches continually stated that this is the primary arena they attend in order to identify athletes they intend to recruit. So, if an athlete wants to play their sport in college, he or she should to attend these events to be seen by Division I coaches from across the country. Further, athletes need to be on these teams at a young age. Since the recruitment process begins much earlier in an athlete’s career, parents need to have their children 180 enrolled on these teams by junior high. Forde (2007) discussed middle school students getting recruited. While critics may see this as too early, this is the way the recruitment process is headin g. Consequently, athletes and their parents need to understand that the recruitment process is occurring quite early and if they are not a part of these teams at a young age, they may miss out on being identified and offered a scholarship in the recruitment process. The problem with the recruitment process beginning earlier in an athlete’s career is that parents may not be aware that they have to get their child on one of these teams in order for them to get recruited. Further, by having the recruitment process earlier, it forces the emphasis to be placed upon athletics and not acaderrrics. This is dangerous because of the small percentage of athletes who continue on to participate in collegiate sport. Finally, this study revealed that recruiting services that claim to increase the likelihood of an athlete being recruiting are completely unnecessary at the Division I level. While the coaches could not speak to their usefulness at the other Divisions, they did state that they were a “complete waste of money.” Often the coaches ignored these emails because they believed if an athlete was talented enough to play for his or her university, that athlete would have already been identified or the coach would have previously heard of the athlete. Therefore, it appears parents should save their money and not partake in these recruiting services. Implications for Coaches Just as athletes and parents need to understand the importance of participation on an AAU or club team, coaches need to be aware of their over reliance on this arena. As a 181 business decision, it would be smart to open up recruiting lines to include others that are not on an AAU or club team. For instance, if an athlete and his or her family cannot afford to be a part of an AAU or club team, that should not reduce his or her chances of being identified for recruitment. That athlete may be able to enhance the coach’s team, so it is important to seek out athletes who for whatever reason are not currently on an AAU or club team. In order to accomplish this, the NCAA could set up free clinics for athletes who do not participate on an AAU or club team. This way the NCAA could ensure that only athletes who meet their criteria are allowed admittance and universities are not violating any NCAA rules. At this clinic, coaches from around the country would be able to see athletes that may not have had a chance to see otherwise. Similarly, some of the coaches discussed recruiting differently by race or using racial ideologies to inform their recruiting decisions. This form of recruiting can be dangerous for a varietyof reasons. First, coaches may offend athletes if they change their personalities or recruiting pitch when they recruit minority athletes. Athletes may dislike coaches acting in this manner and as a result, choose to go to a different institution. Second, by recruiting athletes based on racial ideologies coaches may overlook players that would improve their team. By using “stacking” methods, they could overlook both white and black athletes and lose those athletes to universities they compete against. Therefore, recruiting based on racial ideologies can be bad for business and may end up costing a coach his or her job. Thus it is important for universities to ignore an athlete’s skin color and recruit the best athlete’s for a position. 182 Finally, the coaches in this study discussed the recruiting process starting earlier and earlier in an athlete’s career. While the coaches acknowledge that this is not the best thing for the athlete and can be risky for their program, it is a process that does not appear to be slowing down any time soon. Therefore, coaches need to be proactive and do something about early recruiting. If it is not in the best interest of the athlete to recruit her when she is 14 years old, then coaches should morally object to this behavior and ask the NCAA to set guidelines for middle school or junior high age athletes. If the moral aspect is not enough to force a change, then perhaps the business side of recruiting will do it. The coaches stated that they believed early recruiting was responsible for the increase in the number of athletes transferring schools. Transfers not only hurt the team, but can decrease the teams APR. If the APR falls below a certain number, the team risks losing scholarships. Therefore, it would be in the best interest of coaches to make sure every athlete they recruit is going to be of the caliber they are predicting, will be able to contribute, and is not going to be unhappy and transfer. Implications for the NCAA This study revealed many issues that should be of some concern to the NCAA. The first issue is the current NCAA rule book. It looks as if the NCAA needs to enforce some of their existing rules. The coaches spoke about other teams speaking to parents or athletes during dead periods, sending out more than the allowed number of letters, making additional phone calls, and so forth. They believed these coaches engaged in this behavior because it did not appear they were ever caught or punished. Kelvin Sampson being investigated and punished for rule breaking will hopefully scare other coaches from engaging in rule breaking. However, the NCAA should spend more time and effort 183 enforcing the rules because as the system currently stands, it seems as though the universities who are trying to run clean programs and avoid rule breaking are at a disadvantage to the universities who are breaking the rules. Second, the NCAA needs to address the issue of negative recruiting. The coaches all discussed experiences they had had with negative recruiting. This problem appears to be widespread and not relegated to certain sports. While it may be hard to police what coaches are saying behind closed doors, the NCAA should adopt a policy or create rules in the hope of abolishing this practice. The NCAA needs to be especially tough when it comes to negative recruiting about a person’s sexuality. This not only affects the coaches or athletes that are being stereotyped, but the recruits and their families. The NCAA should work on removing the homophobia that appears to be present and negative recruited about in women’s sports, especially women’s basketball. Currently the NCAA offers workshops for the coaches that discuss diversity issues. However, there should be specific training about negative recruiting and the dangers of engaging in this type of behavior. Finally, the NCAA should confront the issue of early recruiting, especially the recruiting of junior high or middle school athletes. Currently, there is no rule against recruiting an athlete who is in junior high or middle school. Since coaches can contact these athletes as often as they would like, they are competing to be the first ones to speak with or send mail to these athletes. With 14 year old athletes (and there have been others even younger) committing to universities, Division I recruiting is embarking on a dangerous road. The NCAA needs to catch up with the practice of early recruiting and create guidelines and regulations for the coaches. 184 Limitations As with all research, there were limitations to this study. The first limitation is the sample in this study. There were 25 head and assistant Division I coaches in this study from 19 universities in 11 states across the country. While there was diversity in regards to gender, race, and region of the country, there were many coaches who were not interviewed for this study. Their’perceptions and beliefs about the recruitment process may have been different from those interviewed for this study. Therefore, the perceptions and beliefs about the recruitment process of those in this study cannot be generalized to represent every coach across the United States. However, the purpose of qualitative research is not about generalizing; it is about identifying patterns and making reasonable conclusions. Thus, this study was able to identify patterns within the recruitment process. The results in this study are based upon these patterns and provide insight to the recruitment process. There were 12 Division I sports represented in this study, there were other sports teams not included in this study. The sports that were chosen were included in order to have diversity in terms of men’s sports, women’s sports, revenue producing sports and non-revenue producing sports. The sports that were included represented the greatest range of diversity. However, the coaches of sports that were not included may have had different experiences or insights into the recruitment process. The quality of the interview methodology used in this study was also contingent upon the researcher’s expertise in interviewing. While the researcher has conducted previous studies using an interview methodology and made every effort to ask follow-up questions to comprehend what the participants believed, the researcher may have missed 185 asking some follow-up questions that would have better illustrated the point the participant was trying to make. 'In addition, a common critique of interviewing is that the questions sometimes’influence the answers that the participants give (Silverrnan, 2001). While the researcher attempted to avoid this, certain topics and responses may not have been discussed if the original question was not asked. While the researcher expressed to each of the participants that their name and university affiliation would not appear anywhere in the dissertation or in subsequent publications, social desirability could have guided certain participant’s responses to the questions. The participants might have been afraid that if their name were connected with statements about the recruitment process the university or NCAA could respond negatively. The final limitation to this study was trust. It was necessary for the participants to trust the researcher in order to answer the questions honestly, especially since some of the topics covered were sensitive or controversial in nature. To gain the trust of the participants, the research identified herself as a doctoral student working on her dissertation about the recruitment process and she assured the participants that their identities would never be revealed. However, some of the coaches may have had reservations about the researcher that prohibited them from being completely honest and forthcoming during the interview. It was obvious to the researcher that some of the participants were not completely comfortable answering certain questions, primarily questions about sexuality, negative recruiting, and race, and as a result, were very brief or defensive in their remarks. 186 Further, all of the interviews were conducted in person or over the phone. The participants whose interviews were conducted face-to-face appeared to be more comfortable and forthcoming than the interviews that were done by phone. This could be because the participants who were interviewed over the phone may have thought other people would be hearing their responses, while the face-to-face interview participants knew the researcher was the only one in the room with them. In addition, in person the researcher does not look threatening which may have added to the trust level of the in- person interviews. Future Research Directions This study was an important starting place for investigating Division I intercollegiate athletics and was able to bring some clarity to this question. However, there are still gaps that future research could examine. While the researcher interviewed 25 different Division I head and assistant coaches, the findings were dependent upon the coaches’ statements about the recruitment process. In order to gain another perspective, it would be advantageous to follow a coach throughout the recruitment process. That would provide firsthand insight into how the coaches recruit, what is said, and any differences that exist within the recruitment process. Coaches had opinions about parents’ role in the recruitment process. It would be beneficial to interview parents of athletes currently going through the recruitment process to understand their perceptions and experiences in the process. Since parents are often helping their children through the recruitment process, understanding their perceptions of recruiting could lead to an understanding of why athletes are committing to certain schools. 187 Similarly, examining what athletes think about the recruitment process would provide a different perspective of recruiting. It could also illuminate any rule breaking, negative recruiting, and sociocultural issues that are occurring in the recruitment process. While the coaches were vague about some of these topics, the athletes may be able to provide a perspective that the coaches did not have. Finally, it would be interesting to examine Division II, Division III, or Ivy League universities. Since these universities do not fall under “Big-Time” programs, they may have different experiences, problems, or perceptions of the recruitment process. Division 11 universities do not have the same media exposure and are not competing for the top recruits, thus the coaches’ experiences and perceptions may differ from those of Division I coaches. Similarly, Division HI and Ivy League coaches do not give athletic scholarships which may impact the way coaches recruit. Therefore, it would be interesting to examine this process. Summary of Study The purpose of this study was to examine the intercollegiate recruiting practices of NCAA Division I coaches. Through interviews with 25 head and assistant coaches, insight was gained into the coaches’ beliefs and perceptions about different aspects of the recruitment process. While the perceptions and experiences surrounding the recruitment process varied, it was obvious that the coaches genuinely enjoyed recruiting athletes and understood the importance of recruiting quality athletes to their program. However, issues of early recruiting, rule breaking, and negative recruiting also arose out of this study. These are all incredibly important issues that will hopefully be examined by the 188 NCAA, so athletes can have a positive recruiting experience and make choices based upon facts and not misinformation. 189 Appendix A Interview Guide This semi-structured interview guide will direct the interviews with the coaches. The numbered questions will be asked of the coaches while the letters are prompts that may be used to probe the coaches for more detail depending on how he or she answers the question. General Information 1. 2. 6. 7. Can you please state your name and the sport that you coach? How long have you been coaching your sport? How long have you been coaching your sport at this university? How successful is your program compared to other programs in the conference? Where did your program. rank in the conference this past season? Can you describe how much pressure is there on you to win? Can you describe how much pressure is there on you to recruit well? University Specific Information 8. Tell me about the recruiting process for your team? a. b. C. d. 6. Who develops the recruiting plan for your team? When do you first identify athletes as potential recruits? When do you do majority of your recruiting? How much time is put into recruiting one athlete? Do you feel you are given an adequate budget to recruit the best athletes? 9. Tell me about where you locate the athletes to recruit. a. How often do you go to high school games to recruit athletes? 190 d. How often do you go to club or AAU type events to recruit athletes? How often do athletes that directly contact you to play for your school get recruited? If you could only recruit athletes from one arena, where would that be? 10. Tell me about any interactions you have with recruiting services acting on behalf of athletes. Do you pay attention to these services? Do they influence your decision to recruit an athlete? Do you believe they are worth the money the athletes and their families are spending on them? 11. What do you wish athletes knew about the recruitment process? 12. What do you wish parents knew about the recruitment process? The Recruiting Pitch 13. Tell me how you recruit an athlete after you identify him/her for recruitment? a. b. e. What are the biggest selling points coaches use to recruit athletes? What are the selling points you use when recruiting an athlete? What do you highlight to athletes? Do you change your recruiting pitch for each athlete? Does the athlete’s desired occupation impact how you recruit the athlete? 14. What role do parents play in the recruitment process? a. b. What do you highlight to parents? What are parents looking for in the recruiting process? 191 Sociological Factors 15. Are there any sociological factors, such as race or socioeconomic status, which you feel are factors in the recruiting process? a. Does race play a part in how you recruit? i. Race of the athlete? ii. Race of the coach? b. Do you think the race of the coaches influence an athlete’s decision to go to a certain school? c. Does an athlete’s socioeconomic status play a part in how you recruit? (1. Do you feel more pressure to offer a full or partial scholarship to a good athlete from a lower SES background? i. Why? Or Why not? For coaches of men’s and women’s teams 16. Can you discuss if gender is a factor in the recruiting process? a. Do you highlight different aspects of the university to male and female recruit? Negative Recruiting 17. There has been media attention surrounding negative recruiting that goes on during the recruitment process. What do you think about that issue? a. Can you discuss any stories you have heard about negative recruiting. b. Has your school been the object of negative recruiting by other coaches? c. How do you combat negative recruiting? 192 18. Is there anything else you think I should know or ask about the recruitment process? 193 Appendix B The Recruiting Process For Division I men’s basketball, contact can be made beginning in June following an athlete’s sophomore year. Recruitment materials can be sent to an athlete and telephone calls may begin on June 15th following sophomore year. Only one telephone call per month to each potential athlete or the athlete’s parents is allowed by NCAA regulations (NCAA, 2006b; NCAA, 2006b). During the athlete’s junior year, coaches are allowed to call the potential athlete once per month through July 31. Beginning August 1St of the athlete’s senior year, two telephone calls per week to the athlete or the athlete’s parents are allowed by the NCAA. Further, the coach is allowed to make off-campus contact beginning September 9th of the senior year. Official visits to the campus are allowed beginning on the first day of classes at that university (NCAA, 2006b; NCAA, 2006b). Division I men’s basketball coaches are allowed 130 recruiting days per academic year. However, coaches must follow additional regulations during these recruiting days. Coaches are only allowed a maximum of “seven recruiting opportunities (contacts and evaluations combined) during the academic year per prospect” (NCAA, 2006j, p. 1). Coaches are also limited to three off-campus contacts during the potential athlete’s senior year and no off-campus contacts during the junior year (NCAA, 2006b; NCAA, 2006b). Any evaluations or observations “made during the same calendar day (defined as 12:01 am. to midnight) count as one evaluation. Observing a contest or practice or an event in which prospects from multiple institutions participate during the academic year shall count as an evaluation for each prospect in the contest, practice or event even if 194 contact is made during the same day” (NCAA, 2006b, p. 3-4). However, multiple games that are played during a tournament, even if they occur over several days, count as one evaluation or observation (NCAA, 2006b). Coaches cannot contact the potential athletes at the site of the competition during the day or days of competition (NCAA, 2006b). In Division I women’s basketball, coaches are allowed to provide recruiting materials beginning September 1St of the potential athlete’s junior year. Coaches are allowed to place one phone call to the recruit during each of the months of April and May. One telephone call can be “made on or after June 1 through June 20 and one telephone call may be made on or after June 21 through June 30 following the prospect’s completion of the junior year in high school” (NCAA, 2006d, p. 2). In the month of July following the athlete’s junior year, coaches are permitted to make three phone calls to the athlete (NCAA, 2006d; NCAA, 2006b). During the athlete’s senior year, the coach is allowed to call the athlete once per week. Off-campus contact is allowed starting on September 16th and official visits can begin on the first day of classes (NCAA, 2006d; NCAA, 2006b). Women’s basketball coaches are permitted 85 recruiting days during the academic year at the Division I level. While men’s basketball coaches are allowed seven recruiting opportunities per recruit during the academic year, women’s basketball coaches are only allowed a maximum of “five recruiting opportunities (contacts and evaluations combined) during the academic year per prospect and not more than three of the five opportunities may be contacts” (NCAA, 2006j, p. 1). The process of determining what is an evaluation for women’s basketball is the same as men’s basketball. Any evaluations or observations made during the time period 195 of 12:01 am. to midnight count as one observation. During one tournament, a coach can see the same athlete perform in a variety of games and it will only count as one observation, even if the tournament lasts for a few days (NCAA, 2006d). Division I football coaches have more extensive recruiting guidelines to follow than men’s and women’s basketball coaches. The football coaches are allowed to disseminate recruiting materials to recruits on September 1St of the athlete’s junior year. During the month of May of the athlete’s junior year, the coaches are allowed to place one phone call to the recruit. Additional telephone calls to the prospect or the prospect’s family may not be made prior to September 1St of the athlete’s senior year in high school (NCAA, 2006a; NCAA, 2006h). After September 1St of the athlete’s senior year, coaches are allowed to make one phone call per week to. the recruits. However, during the contact period of that year, a coach can make an unlimited number of phone calls to a recruit (NCAA, 2006a). Prospective athletes may place collect or toll-free calls to an institution as longs as the calls are placed after July 1St following the athlete’s junior year in high school. The prospect can place calls to an institution at their own expense at any time, including prior to the July 1st date (NCAA, 2006a) Off-campus contact can begin on the Sunday following the last Saturday in November. Official visits can commence on the first day of classes at the university. An institution is allowed three evaluation days per year. The institution cannot use more than one evaluation during the fall evaluation period and can use a maximum of two evaluations in the spring evaluation period (NCAA, 2006a). 196 Division I football programs are split into two categories: I-A and I-AA. The one main difference between the two categories of football is fan attendance. In Division I-A, football teams “have to meet minimum attendance requirements (average 15,000 people in actual or paid attendance per home game), which must be met once in a rolling two- year period. Division I-AA teams do not need to meet minimum attendance requirements” (NCAA, 2005, p. 1). In Division I-A football, “coaches may only evaluate on six days, selected at the institution’s discretion, during the months of September, October and through the last Saturday in November. Coaches may visit a particular educational institution only once during the fall evaluation period” (NCAA, 2006, p. 4). Division I-AA schools are “limited to 42 evaluation days over a period not to exceed 42 days during the fall evaluation period. An evaluation day is defined as one coach engaged in the evaluation of any prospect on one day (12:01 to midnight); two coaches making evaluations on the same day shall use two evaluation days” (NCAA, 2006, p.4). In both Division I-A and I-AA football, “the time period during which the three permissible evaluations may take place shall be from April 15 through April 14 of the following academic year” (NCAA, 2006a, p. 4). Additionally, as in women’s and men’s basketball, a coach can make any number of evaluations or observations on one calendar day (12:01 to midnight) and it will still count as one evaluation (NCAA, 2006a). While men’s basketball, women’s basketball, and football all have their own separate recruiting guidelines, every other Division I sport has to abide by the same guidelines, with a few exceptions for certain sports (NCAA, 2006c; NCAA, 2006b). During the freshmen and sophomore years in high school, no contact can be made by the 197 coach or institution to the recruit. However, there is an exception to this rule. In ice hockey, a coach can place one telephone call to an international prospect during the month of July following the athlete’s sophomore year in high school (NCAA, 2006i). During the prospect’s junior year in high school, coaches can begin distributing recruiting materials on September 1". These recruiting materials that are provided to the prospect or the prospect’s coach can included “general correspondence, such as letters, facsimiles and electronic mail, postcards issued by the US. Postal Service (i.e., blank note cards), and institutional note cards” (NCAA, 2006c, p. 6). However, these materials must be sent regular mail not express mail to the prospects. All attachments to the general correspondence must be printed on white paper with black ink. Color correspondence may be used in electronic mail only. In addition, game programs cannot be mailed to prospects but athletics publications, such as an annual press guide or recruiting guide, can be sent to the prospect (NCAA, 2006c). The coaches can make telephone calls to the recruits beginning on July 1St following the athlete’s junior year in high school. Telephone calls can be made to “a prospect once per week (measured Sunday through Saturday). The once per week limit applies to the entire institution” (NCAA, 2006c, p. 2). Also on July 1", off-campus contact can begin to be made. However, in gymnastics off-campus recruiting does not begin until July 15th after the athlete’s junior year (NCAA, 2006i). There is a limit of seven recruiting opportunities per prospect. These recruiting opportunities may include “three in-person, off-campus recruiting contacts per prospect (which include contacts with the prospect’s relatives or legal guardians) during the 198 prospect’s senior year prior to the prospect’s signing of the National Letter of Intent” (NCAA, 2006c, p. 3). All contacts made between the coach and the prospective athlete during one calendar day (12:01 am. to midnight) is considered one contact. A coach could visit the prospect at his or her school during the day and then at the prospects home later that same day. These two contacts would be counted as one contact by the NCAA rules (NCAA, 2006c). Similar to men’s basketball, women’s basketball, and football, “any number of evaluations or observations made during the same calendar day (defined as 12:01 am. to rrridnight) count as one evaluation. Observing a contest or practice counts as an evaluation for each prospect in the contest or practice” (NCAA, 2006c, p. 4). Further, “tournament games held on consecutive days (and normally at the same site) count as one evaluation. Also, games held within the same tier of a tournament (e. g., sectional, district, regional) count as one evaluation” (NCAA, 2006c, p. 4). Official visits to institutions, like all other areas of recruitment, have their limitations. A recruit is limited to a maximum of five total expense-paid visits to NCAA Division I schools regardless of the sport in which the recruit participates. The recruit “may not be provided an expense-paid visit earlier than the opening day of classes of the prospect’s senior year in high school” (NCAA, 2006c, p. 7). The length of the official “may not exceed 48-hours, measured from the time a prospect first reaches campus or is entertained in any manner by the institution, whichever comes first, to the time of the prospect’s departure from the campus” (NCAA, 2006c, p. 8). 199 During a prospect’s unofficial visit to the university regardless of the sport the athlete participates in, the prospect must pay for all expenses incurred during the trip. A prospect can visit an institution’s campus “an unlimited number of times and may make an unofficial visit before the prospect’s senior year in high school” (NCAA, 2006c, p. 9). For all athletes on an unofficial visit, the institution is “limited to providing a maximum of three complimentary admissions (issued only through a pass list) to a home athletics event at any facility within a 30-mile radius of the institution’s campus in which the institution’s intercollegiate team practices or competes, for the exclusive use of the prospect and those persons accompanying the prospect on the visit” (NCAA, 2006c, p. 9). The prospect may only sit in the general seating area and cannot visit any luxury boxes, benches, the press box, or any other area that is not available to the general public. However, the prospect may not receive any complimentary tickets to the institutions postseason games nor can the institution put tickets for the prospect to purchase to any postseason games (NCAA, 2006c). Unlike Division I, Division H sports all follow the same guidelines in terms of recruiting. Institutions cannot make contact or send any recruiting materials during the athlete’s freshmen and sophomore years of high school. On September 1St of the prospect’s junior year, the institution is allowed to begin sending recruiting materials to the prospect (NCAA, 2006c; NCAA, 2006b). An institution cannot produce video and/or audio materials to show or send to a prospect (or the prospect’s coach). Institutions or coaches cannot produce a recruiting video to send to the recruit or his/her coach. However, there are exceptions to the no video/audio tape rule. Highlight films and videos that are “game clips’ that contain informational material that is related to a particular 200 event or sports season. Any narration on the highlight film/video must relate specifically to the event 0 sport season” (NCAA, 2006c, p. 5). Institutions are also allowed to send nonathletic videotapes. These are “official academic, admissions and student-services videotapes/audio tapes available to all students” (NCAA, 2006c, p. 5). In all sports at the Division II level, “institutional staff members may not telephone a prospect (or the prospect’s relatives or legal guardians) before June 15 preceding the prospect’s senior year in high school. After June 15, institutional staff members may telephone a prospect once per week (measured Sunday through Saturday)” (NCAA, 2006e, p. 2). However, during a contact period in the sport of football, telephone contact may be made at the institution’s judgment (NCAA, 2006e). Similar to the rules for telephone calls, all sports must follow the rules for the permissible number of contacts and evaluations. Each university “is permitted three in- person, off-campus recruiting contacts during the academic year per prospect at any site (which includes contacts with the prospect’s relatives or legal guardians), but shall not include contacts made during an official visit” (NCAA, 2006e, p. 3). All contacts made during one calendar day (12:01 am. to midnight) are considered one contact. A coach could visit the prospect at school, meet with the parents, and then gather with the family at their home and it would all count as one contact if it is done within the one calendar day. While there are limitations on the number of contacts a coach can have, there are no limitations to the amount of evaluations that a coach or institution can have per prospect per year (NCAA, 2006e). Official visits at the Division H level are similar to official visits at the Division I level. A prospect cannot “make more than five expense-paid visits to NCAA Division I 201 and H member institutions, regardless of the number of sports in which the prospect is involved. The institution is required to notify the prospect in writing of the five-visit limit at the time of its invitation but before the prospect’s visit” (NCAA, 2006e, p. 5). An institution can only finance one visit per prospect while that prospect is in high school. The institution may also provide a second visit to the school beginning September lSt following the athlete’s completion of high school (NCAA, 2006e). The official visit during high school cannot be provided until the first day of classes in the athlete’s senior year of high school. The official visit cannot last longer than 48 hours, which is measured from the arrival of the prospect on campus to the time the athlete departs from the campus (NCAA, 2006e). A prospect can make an unlimited amount of unofficial visits to an institution at his or her own expense while in high school. Unofficial visits can be made prior to the athlete’s senior year of high school. While on an unofficial visit, the prospects and the institutions follow slightly different rules from Division I unofficial visits in regards to entertainment and tickets. The coach and institution “is limited to providing a maximum of three complimentary admissions to a campus athletics event in which the institution’s intercollegiate team competes for the exclusive use of the prospect and those persons accompanying the prospect on the visit” (NCAA, 2006e, p. 7). The institution is allowed . to provide complimentary tickets to postseasons conference games and tournaments if that school is participating. However, the institution cannot provide or reserve tickets for NCAA championship games (NCAA, 2006c). In Division HI athletics, the rules are different from Division I and Division H in many areas. Coaches and institutions may contact prospects as early as their freshman 202 year in high school. Coaches are allowed to provide the recruits with “any official academic admissions, athletics and student-service publications published by the institution and other information of a general nature that is available to all students” (NCAA, 2006f, p. 2). Telephone calls are also allowed to prospects beginning in the athlete’s freshman year. There are no limitations placed upon institutions or coaches regarding telephone calls. A coach can place as many calls to a prospect as he or she would like during the prospect’s years in high school (NCAA, 2006i). A Division III institution can only finance one official visit to the campus for the prospect and his or her family while the athlete is in high school. This official visit cannot take place prior to the athlete’s senior year of high school. The visit can be made to the campus and the off-campus athletic facilities. A second official visit is allowed beginning October 15'h following the athlete’s completion of high school (NCAA, 2006f). An official visit may not exceed 48 hours in length. This time is “measured from the time the prospect fist reaches campus or is entertained in any manner by the institution, whichever comes first, to the time of the prospect’s departure from the campus” (NCAA, 2006f, p. 2). A prospect may make an unlimited number of unofficial visits to an institution over their four years in high school. Prospects must pay for all expenses themselves during this trip. On an unofficial visit, “the institution is limited to providing a maximum of three complimentary admissions to a campus athletics event in which the institution’s intercollegiate team practices or competes, for the exclusive use of the prospect and those persons accompanying the prospect on the visit” (NCAA, 2006f, p. 3). Similarly to 203 Division II, institutions may provide complimentary admissions for a prospect to attend a postseason conference tournament if the institution is participating in the contest and the game is held on the institution’s own campus. However, the prospect may not receive complimentary, reduced, and reserved tickets to an NCAA championship game or other postseason games (NCAA, 2006f). 204 Appendix C Sport Experience and Opinions: Interview Consent Form Because you are currently a Division I coach, I am inviting you to take part in this research interview. You must be 18 years old or older in order to participate. The interview is open-ended, meaning that I have a list of questions that I will ask and there are no right or wrong answers. I am interested in your honest answers to questions about your experiences recruiting high school athletes for your athletic team and the culture that surrounds recruiting. I anticipate that the interview will last 60 minutes. I seek your consent to audio-record the interview. If you consent, the recording will be digital and data will be transferred to a CD for storage in a locked file cabinet. I will transcribe all or portions of your interview for data analysis and reporting. You are free to decline to participate in any or all parts of the interview, with no penalty. You are also free to withdraw from the study at any time, also without penalty. You can end the interview at any time or decline to answer any question. You can also request that I turn off the audio-recorder at any time and for any duration. I do not anticipate any significant risk to you as a participant in this study, and I hope that the opportunity to participate in a study about your experience and opinions about recruiting high school athletes to collegiate teams. I am interested in understanding where you identify talent to recruit. If you would like to use your real name for the purpose of this interview that is perfectly acceptable. Please understand that your name will be associated with your answers and may be reported in journals and at conference presentations. However, if you would prefer to use a pseudonym, that is acceptable as well. I will provide you with a pseudonym and the name of your institution will not be associated with your responses. I will report data (in, for example, journal articles and conference presentations) in such a way that you are not identifiable, and your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. If you have any questions about this study, please contact the investigator Kristen Renn, Associate Professor of Higher, Adult, & Lifelong Education (HALE), Michigan State University, 428 Erickson Hall, East Lansing, MI 48823, 517-353-5979, renn@msu.edu or Amanda Paule, Doctoral Student in the Department of Kinesiology, 39 1M Circle, East Lansing, MI 48823, 517-432-7121, gauleama©msu.edu. You can contact either of us at any time with any questions you have about the study or your participation in it. If you have any questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact - anonymously, if you wish - Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Director of the Human Subject Protection Programs at 205 Michigan State University, by phone: (517) 355-2180, fax: (517) 432-4503, email: irb@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824. Interview consent: By signing below, you agree that you voluntarily participate in this research interview. Please also circle “yes” or “no” to indicate your consent to have the interview audio-recorded as described above. Do you agree to have this interview audio-recorded? Yes No Do you agree to have your real name used? Yes No If no, please provide a pseudonym: Signature Date Please return one signed copy of this form to us and keep one copy of the form for yourself. 206 Figure 2. 2006-2007 NCAA Recruiting Calendar Division I Men’s Division I Division I Football Division I Basketball Women’s Other Sports Basketball Sophomore Recruiting Telephone Materials Calls — June 15 following - Ice Hockey — sophomore year one call to Telephone Calls international - Once per month prospect June 15 following during month sophomore year of July following sophomore year Junior Telephone Calls Recruiting Recruiting Recruiting - One per month Materials Materials Materials through July 31 - September 1 - September 1 - September 1 Telephone Calls Telephone Calls Telephone - April call - One during month Calls permissible after of May - Once per Thursday following week July 1 Women’s Final following Four junior year — One during each Off-campus of the months of contact May and June - July 1 - One on or after following June 21 following junior year junior year - Gymnastics — - Three during the off-campus month of July contact — July followingjunior 15 following ear junior year Senior Telephone Calls Telephone Calls Telephone Calls Telephone - Twice per week - Once per week - September 1 — one Calls 011’ campus contact Off-campus per week (unlimited - Once per - September 9 contact during contact week Official Visit - September 16 period) Off-campus - Opening day of Official Visit Off-campus contact contact classes - Opening day of - Last Sunday — No more than classes following the last three off- Saturday in campus November contacts Official Visit Official Visit - Opening day of - Opening day classes of classes 207 Figure 2 (continued). 2006-2007 NCAA Recruiting Calendar Division I Men’s Division I Division I Football Division I Basketball Women’s Other Sports Basketball Evaluation 130 recruiting- 85 recruiting- Six selected 50 evaluation and person days during person days during evaluation days days - Softball Contacts academic year academic year during September, between - Not more than - Not more than October, and through August 1 — seven recruiting five recruiting the last Saturday in July 31 opportunities opportunities November (I-A) 80 evaluation (contacts and (contacts and - 42 evaluation days days — evaluations evaluations during the fall Women’s combined) during combined) during evaluation period (1- Volleyball the academic year the academic year AA) between per prospect per prospect and - Limit of three August 1 — - Not more than not more than three evaluations during July 31 three off-campus of the five academic year - Not more contacts during opportunities may - One evaluation than seven prospect’s senior be contacts during fall recruiting year - Practice / - Two evaluations opportunities - No off-campus competition site during April 15-May (contacts and contacts during restrictions 31 evaluations prospect’s junior - Not more than six combined) year off-campus contacts during the - Practice / per prospect at any academic year competition site site per prospect restrictions - Practice / and not more competition site than three of restrictions the seven opportunities may be contacts - Practice / competition site restrictions (NCAA, 2006j) 208 References 5 Star Recruits. (2007). 5 Star Recruits. Retrieved February 25, 2007, from http://www.5starrecruits.com/index2.htm. Acosta, R.V. & Carpenter, LJ. (2008). Women in intercollegiate sport: A longitudinal, national study thirtyone year update, 1977-2008. Retrieved February 24, 2008, from http://www.acostacarpenter.org/. Adler, P.A. & Alder, P. (1991). Backboards and blackboards: College athletes and role engulfinent. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Adler, P.A. & Alder, P. (1999). College athletes in high-profile media sports: The consequences of glory. In J. Coakley & P. Donnelly (Eds.), Inside sports (pp. 162-170). London: Routledge. Amateur Athletic Union. (2006). About AAU. Retrieved June 20, 2006, from http://aausports.org/default.asp?a=pgAbout AAU.htm. Associated Press. (2006, July 20). Weis denies charge of negative recruiting. Retrieved January 30, 2008, from http://sportsespn.go.com/espn/print?id=2525502&type=story. Benford, RD. (2007). The college sports reform movement: Reframing the “edutainment” industry. The Sociological Quarterly, 48, pp. 1-28. Blau, P.M., & Duncan, 0D. (1967). The American occupational structure. New York: Wiley. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage. Coakley, J .L. (2007). Sport and society: Issues and controversies (9th ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill. Coburn, KL. (2006). Organizing a ground crew for today’s helicopter parents. On Campus, 11, p. 9-16. Coleman, J .S. (1959). Academic achievement and the structure of competition. Harvard Educational Review, 29, p. 330-351. Communities for Equity, (2007). CFE v. MHSAA. Retrieved May 31, 2007, from http://www.communitiesforequity.com/mhsaa.html Conrad, CF. (1978). A grounded theory of academic change. Sociology of Education, 51, pp. 101-112. 209 Creswell, J .W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Columbus, OH: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall. Davies, R. O. (1994). America ’s obsession: Sports and society since 1945. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. Edwards, H. (1973). Sociology of sport. Homewood, H4 Dorsey Press. Eitzen, D.S. (2003). Fair and foul: Beyond the myths and paradoxes of sport (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Eitzen, D.S. (2006). Fair and foul: Beyond the myths and paradoxes of sport (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Forde, P. (2007). It’s a scary thought, but middle schoolers are now recruitable players. Retrieved January 30, 2008, from http://www.sportsespn.go.com/espn/print?id=2930720&type=story. Fulks, BL. (2002). Revenues and expenses of Division I and II intercollegiate athletics programs: Financial trends and relationships. Indianapolis: National Collegiate Athletic Association. Glaser, B.G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, AL. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine. Groddy, K., Roesler, L., & Yurk, K. (2005). 2005—06 Guide for the college-bound student-athlete. Indianapolis, IN: The National Collegiate Athletic Association. Retrieved June 20, 2006, from http://www.ncaa.org/librag/general/cbsa/2005- 06/2005-06 cbsa.pdf. Haller, A.O. & Portes, A. (1973). Status attainment processes. Sociology of Education, 46, PP. 51-91. Hurley, E. (1999). The recruitment process for athlete, coach, and parents. Coach and Athletic Director, 68, pp. 67-61. Jaeger, RM. (1993). Statistics: A spectator sport (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kane, M. (1971). An assessment of ‘Black is best’. Sports Illustrated, 34, pp. 72-83. 210 Kellner, D. (1990). Critical theory and the crisis of social theory. Sociological Perspectives, 33, pp. 11-33. Klimovich-Harrop, J. (2005, October 23). A silent dilemma haunts women’s college recruitment. Pittsburgh-Tribune Review, Retrieved from http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/print 38691 1.html. Klungseth, S._(2004). Getting yourself recruited: A guide for high school athletes. Coach and Athletic Director, 74, pp. 48-51. Krause, C. (2007). Recruiting 2.0: If you are good enough, they will find you. Coach and Athletic Director, pp. 38-42. Letawsky, N., Schneider, R., Pedersen, P., & Palmer, C. (2003). Factors influencing the college selection process of student-athletes: Are their factors similar to non- athletes?. College Student Journal, 37, pp. 604-610. Lin, N. (1999). Social networks and status attainment. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, pp. 467-487. Lin, N. Ensel, W.M., & Vaughn, J.C. (1981). Social resources and strength of ties: Structural factors in occupational status attainment. American Sociological Review, 46, pp. 393-405. Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Lumpkin, A., Stoll, S.K., & Beller, J. (2003). Sport ethics: Application for fair play (3rd ed.). Beston: McGraw Hill. McCormick, R.A. & McCormick, A.C. (2006). The myth of the student-athlete: College athlete as employee. Washington Law Review, 81, pp. 71-156. McNamee, SJ. & Miller, R.K. (2004). The Meritocracy Myth. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. McNeal, RB. (1995). Extracurricular activity participation and dropping out of high school. Sociology of Education, 68, pp. 62-80. McNeal, RB. (1998). High school extracurricular activities: Closed structures and stratifying patterns of participation. The Journal of Educational Research, 91, pp. 183-191. Miller, K.E., Sabo, D.F., Melnick, M.J., Farrell, M.P., & Barnes, GM. (2000). The Women ’3 Sports Foundation report: Health risks and the teen athlete. East Meadow, NY: Women’s Sports Foundation. 211 National Federation of State High School Associations. (n.d.). NCAA eligibility requirements. Retrieved July 9, 2006, from http://www.nflhs.com/academics/features/eligibility_0824200l sim.asp National Federation of State High School Associations. (2005). 2004-2005 participation survey. Retrieved June 20, 2006, from http://www.nfhsorg/scriptcontent/V A Custom/SurveyResourecs/2004— 05 Participation Surveypdf. National Women’s Law Center. (1997). Title D( and Women’s Athletic Opportunity: A Nation’s Promise Yet to be Fulfilled. NCAA. (2005). What ’s the difference between divisions I, II and III ?. Retrieved July 9, 2006, from http://www.ncaa.org/about/div criteriahtml. ‘ NCAA. (2006a). 2005-06 Division I coaches recruiting guide: Football. Indianapolis, IN: The National Collegiate Athletic Association. Retrieved June 20, 2006, from http://www.ncaa.org/library/membeship/recruiting guides/2005-O6/2005- 06 d1 football recruit _guide.pdf. NCAA. (2006b). 2005-06 Division I coaches recruiting guide: Men ’s basketball. Indianapolis, IN: The National Collegiate Athletic Association. Retrieved June 20, 2006, from httgflwww.ncaa.org/librarv/membeship/recruiting guides/2005- 06/2005-06 d1 mz-basketball recruit guidepdf. NCAA. (2006c). 2005-06 Division I coaches recruiting guide: Sports other than football and basketball. Indianapolis, IN: The National Collegiate Athletic Association. Retrieved June 20, 2006, from http://www.ncaa.org/library/membeship/recruiting guides/2005-O6/2005- 06 d1 other sports recruit mguidepdf. NCAA. (2006d). 2005-06 Division I coaches recruiting guide: Women ’s basketball. Indianapolis, IN: The National Collegiate Athletic Association. Retrieved June 20, 2006, from http://www.ncaa.org/library/membeship/recruitin;guides/2005- 06/2005-06 d] w basketball recruit guidepdf. NCAA. (2006c). 2005-06 Division II coaches recruiting guide. Indianapolis, IN: The National Collegiate Athletic Association. Retrieved June 20, 2006, from http://www.ncaa.org/library/membeshflrecruiting guides/2005-06/2005-06 d2 recruigguidepdf. NCAA. (2006f). 2005-06 Division III coaches recruiting guide. Indianapolis, IN: The National Collegiate Athletic Association. Retrieved June 20, 2006, from htt ://www.ncaa.or librar lmembeshi /recruitin uides/2005-06/2005- 06 d3 recruit guidepdf. 212 NCAA. (2006g). 2005 Federal graduation-rates for NCAA division I schools. Retrieved March 6, 2007, from http://www.ncaa.org/grad rates/2005/d1 school data.html NCAA. (2006b). Estimated probability of competing in athletics beyond the high school interscholastic level. Retrieved June 20, 2006, from http://www.ncaa.org/research/prob of competinj NCAA. (2006i). Information about the graduation-rates report. Retrieved March 6, 2007, from http://www.ncaa.org/grad rates/2005/dl info.pdf NCAA. (2006j). NCAA recruiting chart. Retrieved January 14, 2007, from http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/membership svcs/recruitinchalendars/2006- 07/recruitingchart.pdf NCAA. (2006k). Revised budget for fiscal year ended August 31, 2007. Retrieved March 7, 2007, from http://wwwl.ncaa.org/finance/2006—07 budget.pdf NCAA. (2008). Notice of allegations to the President of Indiana University, Bloomington. Indianapolis: National Collegiate Athletic Association. Nitardy, N. (2006). How college coaches recruit. Retrieved June 20, 2006, from http://www.nflhs.com/academics/Scholarships/scholarships 08012000 db.asp Omi, M. & Winant, H. (1994). Racial formation in the United States. New York, NY: Routledge. Orszag, J .M. & Orszag, PR. (2005). The empirical efi‘ects of collegiate athletics: An update. Indianapolis: National Collegiate Athletic Association. O’Toole, T. & Marot, M. (2006, May 25). NCAA imposes recruiting ban on Indiana coach Kelvin Sampson. USA Today, Retrieved February 22, 2008, from http://www.usatodaLcoWspons/college/mensbasketball/2006-05-25-oklahoma- sampson-indiana x.htm Paule, A. & Renn, K. (2006). If you ’re good, they’ll find you: An examination of the Communities for Equity versus the Michigan High School Athletic Association court case. Unpublished research study. Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluations & research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluations & research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Recruit. (2006). Testimonials. Retrieved February 25, 2007, from httgl/wwwrecruitzone.confltestimonialsasp 213 Richardson, J.T.E. (1999). The concepts and methods of phenomenographic research. Review of Educational Research, 69, pp. 53-82. Sage, G.H. (1998). Power and ideology in American sport (2nd ed.). Champaign, H: Human Kinetics. Sewell, W.H., Haller, A.O., & Portes, A. (1969). The educational and early occupational attainment process. American Sociological Review, 34, pp. 82-92. Silverrnan, D. (2001). Interpreting qualitative data (2"d ed.). London, England. Sage. Spady, W.G. (1970). Lament for the letterman: Effects of peer status and extracurricular activities on goals and achievement. American Journal of Sociology, 75, pp. 680- 702. Spady, W.G. (1971). Status, achievement, and motivation inthe American high school. School Review, pp. 379-403. Stone, J ., Lynch, C.I., Sjomeling, M. and Darley, J .M. (1999). Stereotype threat effects on black and white athletic performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, pp. 1213 - 1227. Thomas J. & Nelson J. (2001). Research methods in physical activity (4th ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Vicente, R. (2006). 1981-82 — 2004-05 NCAA sports sponsorship and participation rates report. Indianapolis, IN: The National Collegiate Athletic Association. Retrieved July 15, 2006, from http://www.ncaa.org/library/research/participation rates/1982- 2005/1982 2005_participation rates.pdf White, H. (2005). Rising tide: Is swimming the next great African-American sport? Retrieved March 10, 2008, from http://www.blackvoices.com/black_sports/special/_a/rising-tide-is-swimming—the- next-great/2005071 1083509990001 Wilson, R. & Wolverton, B. (2008, January 11). The new face of college sports. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 54, pp. A27-A29. Women’s Sports Foundation. (2000, August 11). Coaching - do female athletes prefer male aoaches?: The Foundation position. Retrieved March 11, 2008, from mzllwww.womenssportsfoundation.org/cgi- bin/iowa/issues/coach/articlehtml?record=3 214 Zimbalist, A. (1999). Unpaid professionals: Commercialism and conflict in big-time college sports. Princeton, NJ : University Press. 215 SSSSSSSSS lllllllllllllllllllllll 1293 02956 5722 will