Tags

, , , , , ,

C

Communication Technology and NCAA Recruiting

Research Design

Kevin Alan Lamb

501 Organizational Research Methods

Wesley Church, II, PH.D.

May 12, 2009

Communication Technology and NCAA Recruiting

Introduction

Since birth, the NCAA has been faced with the troubled task of enforcing the rules by which it was founded. While recruiting student-athletes was not originally permitted, or intended, the exponential success of college athletics in the United States cemented recruiting a seat at the king’s table. While every college, university, and coaching staff lived under the same NCAA guidelines, unique and creative interpretation of such guidelines has enabled many universities access to a top tier of student-athletes leading to such perennial powerhouses as USC, Florida, Alabama, and Duke. Creative interpretation paired with an inability to monitor and enforce an institution of such magnitude has lead to a cut-throat industry fueled by the most competitive edge filled with scandals, alleged violations, and dissonance. The NCAA is faced with a competing duality: to allow coaches to have sufficient access to student-athletes to determine if they are right for their program, thus improving the quality of the student-athlete, and organization, in juxtaposition with protecting the privacy and best interest of the those student-athletes and their families.

Technology, and in particular communication-technology has become but another tool by which coaches and universities push the envelope in their interpretation of guidelines to recruit athletes. Examples of these innovations that have changed the recruiting game for good include: social networking websites, text-messages, e-mail, video chat, direct-messages, and even a new twist on an old age concept, comic books. The NCAA is active in its effort to combat this influx of new technology, but openly admits the difficulties, and anticipated difficulties of effective regulation.

Literature Review

NCAA Recruiting History

When the Intercollegiate Athletic Association of the United States — the ancestor of the modern NCAA – published its first manual in 1906, the rules governing recruiting were simple and straightforward; it wasn’t allowed (Staples, p. 1, 2008). The six-page manual included bylaws that forbade “the offering of inducements to players to enter Colleges or Universities because of their athletic abilities” and “the singling out of prominent athletic students of preparatory schools and endeavoring to influence them to enter particular College or  University”(Staples, p. 1). With little manpower or means to reasonably monitor and enforce such regulations, few programs honored the NCAA’s zero tolerance policy.

The original NCAA embraced the amateur ideal, requiring schools to draw athletes from the general student body. Athletic scholarships didn’t exist at most schools. As a result, schools discovered they could get the best football players by finding them jobs or offering under-the-table payments. In response to an ever-growing athletic black market once radio broadcasts made football one of the nations most popular sports, leaders of the Southeastern Conference (SEC) voted in December of 1935 to allow schools to pay tuition, room and board for athletes (Staples).  In 1951, under Walter Byers schools voted to allow athletic scholarships and recruiting; the NCAA gradually added rues and staff, including an enforcement arm to ensure schools followed the new rules. This leads to the NCAA’s most significant problem, monitoring and enforcing some 100,000 student athletes, and even more students, fans, boosters, and alumni.

As the years passed and the NCAA rulebook expanded, coaches needed to be more creative if they wanted to secure the best players and stay out of the NCAA’s doghouse. In the late 1960s and throughout ’70s, no group of coaches flirted with this fine line better than the Oklahoma Football staff (Staples, p. 1). Demonstrating a program’s need to stay one step ahead of the curve Oklahoma great coach Barry Switzer said “As much as people would like to think we were cheating because we were signing so many great players, it wasn’t to the extent that people thought … we were out ahead of some people” (Staples, p. 1).  The main focus for Staples is that since creation, the NCAA has been faced with the troubled task of competing with coaches that make a living in competition. No matter what length the NCAA goes to limit a coach’s recruiting reach, a coach that wants to win will find a new way to separate their program in the recruiting business.

Self-aware of their dilemma, the NCAA is beginning to project into the future striving to make the transformation from reactionary regulation to anticipatory regulation, “The quest to get ahead has led to the creation of new rules to stop specific practices and some suspect interpretation of the rules once they hit the books” (p.1) It is in this effort to get ahead that technology plays a substantial role in the NCAA’s ability to achieve the transformation from reactionary to anticipatory  in terms of regulation.

Communication Technology

A social network service focuses on building online communities of people who share interests and/or activities, or who are interested in exploring the interests and activities of others. Coaches and players alike utilize Facebook, making it an invaluable recruiting tool. Originally the NCAA allowed coaches to recruit through Facebook without regulation. Because of alias usernames and privacy protections, it’s sometimes impossible to determine potential NCAA infractions. Boosters, for instance, are prohibited from contacting recruits (Marot, 2007).

President Myles Brand told the Associated Press. “We’re already struggling with social networks, and the technology changes very quickly. That makes it hard” (Marot, p.2, 2007). Especially hard because most NCAA regulations take at least one year to make it from proposal to rule, longer than some tech companies need to produce the next big gadget. The 460-page Division I manual includes regulations about almost everything, from official statistics to major infractions. But today’s primary recruiting tools are absent (Marot).

The NCAA has prohibited coaches from sending text-messages to recruits. The NCAA’s board of directors approved the ban to eliminate text from coaches to recruits April 26th 2007 effective August, and left open the possibility of revisiting the legislation as early 2008 (Text Messaging Ban, The Associated Press). The board is meeting again in June to revisit the legislation. Recruits are still permitted to text coaches, but coaches cannot respond under new rule. The article admits the difficulty policing such legislation. Previously coaches were allowed to send an unlimited amount of text-messages to recruits. This allowed them 24 hour access, whether it is during school hours or in their homes at night. While coaches who discovered text-messaging in the early stages were thought of geniuses, an eventual mass amount of texts flooded student-athletes lives, leading to the concern that student’s would be distracted and have their privacy invaded.

Calling a player on his home phone or sending him a postmarked letter, labels a coach a dinosaur too unhip to consider. As a result, recruiters live and die by their Blackberrys, Sidekicks, e-mails, text messages, instant messages, and social websites to communicate. “I don’t know if we can ever get ahead of the technology, but as soon as it comes out, we can get involved,” President Myles Brand told the Associated Press (Marot, p.2, 2007).

University of Alabama’s football coach Nick Saban uses an alternative form of CT, separating him self as one of the top recruiters in the NCAA; Alabama is amongst the nation’s top football programs. Saban’s legendary recruiting tactics have linked his name to NCAA legislation prohibiting head coaches from hitting the road to evaluate talent during a six-week period each spring, (the so-called “Saban Rule”)(Steinback, 2008). They now visit schools via webcams and computer monitors, providing more face-to-face time than ever before. Skype is an example of an often used video-chat application. “If you’re not looking for innovative ways to push the envelope, somebody else is. That’s what keeps the top guys on top” (Steinback). Technology is among the issues being reviewed this summer as the NCAA transitions into a new governance structure. A new recruiting cabinet, which will replace the old NCAA Division I Academics Eligibility Compliance Cabinet Subcommittee on Recruiting, will take a look at NCAA recruiting legislation to see how it might be able to be more proactive in addressing the inevitable changes in technology and recruiting, rather than being reactive as these issues come up (Steinback). They come up quickly, and oftentimes it’s the coaches who learn about them first because they’re the ones engaged in the recruiting. Just as technology is exploding in other fields, it’s exploding in athletics, and it’s difficult to be aware of everything that’s out there. Coaches are competitive by nature, they are in a competitive business, million and millions of dollars are at stake, as well as their own livelihood (Steinback).

With the ban of text messaging the latest and greatest idea is Twitter. Twitter is yet another social networking site that allows coaches a potential loophole in the text messaging scenario. Twitter has a mobile component to it, allowing players to create real or dummy names, and have direct messages sent to their mobile devices. Currently direct messages do not count as text messages, and can be used to contact a player with suggestive messages like, “call me”, which lead to the eventual ban on text. Direct messages can only be viewed by sender and recipient, and does not enable monitoring whatsoever; opposed to text messages that can be viewed in phone records (Bronson, 2008).

While many components of CT have been regulated or banned by the NCAA, Twitter is yet to gain their attention, and is crucial in the development of recruiting tactics, and regulations if the NCAA seeks transformation from reactionary to anticipatory; “Twitter could revolutionize the recruiting game” (Bronson, p. 1, 2009). It would allow coaches to maintain contacts with student-athletes at all phases of the recruiting process and get instant feedback from them. You are not sending a message to specific recruit which is prohibited. Instead, you are submitting information in a web-based system that anyone – prospect or not- can decide to follow. Twitter is not text messaging. Your messages are not unique to one person, they can be seen by everyone. Therefore you can’t use Twitter to talk to a single prospect. Everyone with access to Twitter can view what is being said. There are no graphics or images allowed on Twitter messages, and it doesn’t cost anything. Both of those things are in compliance with NCAA rules as outlines in 13.4.1.2 (Bronson).

Frank Butts study of Role Conflict of Athletic Administrators in Monitoring Social Networks examined the current level of monitoring of these social network sites by athletic administrators and the attitudes of athletes related to monitoring. The study used the findings from a survey of 522 college athletes representing NCAA I,II, and III schools during 2007. Surveys were administered by professors, athletic trainers, or coaches at their respective universities. Conclusions included: Obvious benefits to using social networks for communicating and recruiting. However, there are numerous examples of inappropriate use, ranging from NCAA violations related to booster involvement in recruiting to online association with gamblers. With the explosion of social networks as the communication tool for student-athletes, it is paramount that universities and the NCAA formulate policies that ensure Constitutional compatibility, NCAA compliance, and reduce potential conflict between athletes, NCAA policy, courts, and administrators.

Purpose of this Study and Hypothesis

.           Within NCAA division one athletics (basketball, football) there exists a great disparity between student population, resources, and ability to recruit top-tier student-athletes. The purpose of this study is to both document the evolution of recruiting by way of communication technology, in the areas of text messaging, social profiling, and blogging, and further establish a link between the implication of such techniques and program prestige. If such methods can be linked to perennial athletic powerhouses, universities lacking the resources to compete with top tier schools in terms of recruiting budgets, can focus their resources and improve the quality of student-athlete that is recruited. With increased talent, comes increased probability of success, and ultimately program prestige. In addition, if the use of communication technology can be paired with decreased spending, universities can become more efficient in their effort to run as a financially successful organization. Furthermore, by revealing this link in particular recruiting methods and program prestige, additional research will be inspired to determine a more detailed cost-efficiency analysis of the use of communication technology in recruiting, as well as other sectors within athletic recruiting.

Abstract Hypothesis:

Communication technology has improved the efficiency of recruiting student-athletes, and is linked with program prestige.

Operational Hypothesis:

NCAA Recruiting in nature is an ever evolving process through which student-athletes are increasingly engaged. NCAA coaches are competitive in nature, and for a living, requiring them to push the envelope and stay one step ahead of the pack. Technology, and in particular, communication technology has opened the door to previously unimagined methods by which student-athletes are recruited. The ability to increase relationship strength with student-athletes, yet decrease cost associated with in person face-to-face contact, provides athletic programs with deficient resources a chance to compete for top-tier-student-athletes.  Communication technology within recruiting can therefore serve as an equalizer across NCAA division one programs as a whole, ultimately leading to a more competitive and attractive organization.

Procedure

The literature review of this research above indicates significant empirical evidence that communication technology has drastically impacted the method by which NCAA division one programs recruit their student-athletes. To explore the relationship between such impact and program prestige, the focused methods of learning will be statistical archival data, using written records combined with survey. While the research above doesn’t credit communication technology for program prestige, it does identify its presence within the recruiting strategy of an overwhelming number of the nation’s top athletic programs. In an effort to reveal the significance of incorporating communication technology and recruiting to programs with deficient resources, I propose surveys be given to collect the impact communication technology has had on the nation’s top 20 athletic programs (determined by a three year average of most appearances in the Associated Press’ top 25), in addition, surveys inquiring budget inflation or deflation through the use of such recruiting methods.

The first data collection will be to test the impact communication technology has had on the recruiting process for male basketball student-athletes within the nation’s top 20 division one athletic programs. The sample will include one male basketball student-athlete from each of the 20 universities. I will contact universities respective athletic departments four months prior to the surveys being mailed, to ensure an efficient response. If a university and their athletic department appear unwilling, requests will be made to additional schools, based on three year average of most appearances in the Associated Press top 25 poll:

1. North Carolina
2. Kansas
3. Pittsburgh
4. Connecticut
5. Duke
6. Gonzaga
7. Michigan State
8. Memphis
9. Purdue
10. Notre Dame
11. Florida
12. Washington State
13. Marquette
14. Clemson
15. Georgetown
16. Butler
17. Oklahoma
18. Texas A&M
19. Tennessee
20. Xavier

The second data collection will be to test the impact communication technology has had on the recruiting process for football student-athletes within the nation’s top 20 division one athletic programs. The sample will include one male football student-athlete from each of the 20 universities. I will contact universities respective athletic departments four months prior to the surveys being mailed, to ensure an efficient response. If a university and their athletic department appear unwilling, requests will be made to additional schools, based on three year average of most appearances in the Associated Press top 25 poll:

1. Florida
2. USC
3. Texas
4. Oklahoma
5. Georgia
6. Virginia Tech
7. Oregon State
8. Michigan
9. Ohio State
10. LSU
11. Missouri
12. Auburn
13. West Virginia
14. BYU
15. Oregon
16. TCU
17. Penn St
18. Boston College
19. Boise State
20. California

The third data collection will be to test the impact communication technology has had on the recruiting process for basketball coaches within the nation’s top 20 division one athletic programs. The sample will include one basketball coach from each of the 20 universities. I will contact universities respective athletic departments four months prior to the surveys being mailed, to ensure an efficient response. If a university and their coach appear unwilling, requests will be made to additional schools, based on three year average of most appearances in the Associated Press top 25 poll.

1. North Carolina
2. Kansas
3. Pittsburgh
4. Connecticut
5. Duke
6. Gonzaga
7. Michigan State
8. Memphis
9. Purdue
10. Notre Dame
11. Florida
12. Washington State
13. Marquette
14. Clemson
15. Georgetown
16. Butler
17. Oklahoma
18. Texas A&M
19. Tennessee
20. Xavier

The fourth data collection will be to test the impact communication technology has had on the recruiting process for football coaches within the nation’s top 20 division one athletic programs. The sample will include one football coach from each of the 20 universities. I will contact universities respective athletic departments four months prior to the surveys being mailed, to ensure an efficient response. If a university and their coach appear unwilling, requests will be made to additional schools, based on three year average of most appearances in the Associated Press top 25 poll.

1. Florida
2. USC
3. Texas
4. Oklahoma
5. Georgia
6. Virginia Tech
7. Oregon State
8. Michigan
9. Ohio State
10. LSU
11. Missouri
12. Auburn
13. West Virginia
14. BYU
15. Oregon
16. TCU
17. Penn St
18. Boston College
19. Boise State
20. California

The fifth data collection will be to test the impact communication technology has had on the recruiting expenditures of 20 division one basketball programs. The sample will include one recruiting expenditure survey from each of the 20 universities basketball programs. I will contact universities respective athletic departments four months prior to the surveys being mailed, to ensure an efficient response. If a university and their athletic department appear unwilling, requests will be made to additional schools, based on three year average of most appearances in the Associated Press top 25 poll.

1. North Carolina
2. Kansas
3. Pittsburgh
4. Connecticut
5. Duke
6. Gonzaga
7. Michigan State
8. Memphis
9. Purdue
10. Notre Dame
11. Florida
12. Washington State
13. Marquette
14. Clemson
15. Georgetown
16. Butler
17. Oklahoma
18. Texas A&M
19. Tennessee
20. Xavier

The Sixth data collection will be to test the impact communication technology has had on the recruiting expenditures of 20 division one football programs. The sample will include one recruiting expenditure survey from each of the 20 universities football programs.  I will contact universities respective athletic departments four months prior to the surveys being mailed, to ensure an efficient response. If a university and their athletic department appear unwilling, requests will be made to additional schools, based on three year average of most appearances in the Associated Press top 25 poll.

1. Florida
2. USC
3. Texas
4. Oklahoma
5. Georgia
6. Virginia Tech
7. Oregon State
8. Michigan
9. Ohio State
10. LSU
11. Missouri
12. Auburn
13. West Virginia
14. BYU
15. Oregon
16. TCU
17. Penn St
18. Boston College
19. Boise State
20. California

Due to amount of schools, program variation, and wealth of existing research on the topic, current research will play a significant role in determining the prevalence of CT within perennial NCAA powerhouses’ recruiting programs.

These surveys will be paired with instructions for returning once completed.  They will be reviewed, sorted and counted by a human resource professional. The results will help determine the prevalence of communication technology in prestigious athletic programs, its possible effect on spending, and its ability to attract top-tier-student-athletes. In addition, communication technology in athletic recruiting may be associated with efficiency, and decreased spending.

Reliability and Validity

Reliability

Reliability of a measure “is defined as the extent to which it is free from random error” (Hoyle, Harris, & Judd, 2002, p. 83).  Influences on reliability include longer measures, which are more reliable than shorter ones, a larger range of variation on the measured construct among the individuals being surveyed and freedom from distractions, misunderstandings by providing clear instructions and an optimal testing situation. The surveys utilized in this study are simple and precise, allowing little room for human error. The NCAA Recruiting and Communication and Technology players and coaches’ surveys are quantitative scoring systems, removing subjectivity from the process. While random error can never be wholly eliminated, the presence of such error will have little to no significant effect on the outcome of this study. Data collections will prove certain questions better than others, in terms of response rate, and pertinence to the validity of the study. Due to high external validity, test-retest correlation is unlikely to determine dissonance. While program prestige is the dependent variable in this study, looking further, it becomes an easily testable independent variable. Schools with evident use of communication-technology in athletic recruiting, the now dependent variable, are easily monitored annually in terms of program prestige.

Validity

There are three common themes to discuss relative to the validity of the project. In Research Methods in Social Relations (Hoyle, Harris, and Judd, 2002), the themes consist of, Construct Validity, Internal Validity, and External Validity (p. 33). Construct Validity in defined as, “To what extent are the constructs of theoretical interest successfully operationalized in the research?” (p. 33). Internal Validity is defined as, “To what extent does the research design permit us to reach causal conclusions about the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable?” (p. 33). Lastly, External Validity is considered to be, “To what extent can we generalize from the research sample and setting to the populations and settings specified in the research hypothesis?” (p. 33).

Construct Validity

The independent variables in this study are the presence of communication technology within athletic-recruiting and spending. Data collection will identify the level of presence the independent variable has in historically prestigious athletic programs. The dependent variable is program prestige. Each of the 40 respective athletic programs has established program prestige. While identifying a strong presence of the independent variable in this case study doesn’t prove the study’s hypothesis, data collection has the potential of doing so: If a significant percentage of players indicate influence due to communication technology, a significant percentage of coaches indicate increased recruiting abilities due to communication technology, and lastly if athletic departments indicate cost efficiency. While the absence of cost efficiency due to communication technology in reported results is disappointing, it does not diminish the link between the use of communication technology within athletic recruiting and program prestige.   With substantial empirical research to support the construct validity of this study, the collection of irrelevant characteristics and constructs of disinterest within NCAA recruiting and communication technology is greatly reduced, ultimately maximizing construct validity (Hoyle).

Internal Validity

Based on empirical research the results of this study will maintain strong internal validity as they demonstrate a casual relationship between the presence of communication technology within athletic recruiting and program prestige. While there may prove to be no casual relationship between communication technology and cost efficiency, this possible relation comes secondary within the purpose of this study. Due to the nature of NCAA division one athletics, and recruiting, as for-profit organizations, empirical research alone proves the relationship between the use of communication-technology in athletic- recruiting and program prestige. Universities would not employ methods of recruiting without empirical evidence to support its profitability.

External Validity

The 40 schools used as a sample population for this study have been selected based on the frequency of their appearances in the Associated Press’ top 25 polls between 2006 and 2009. While several of the schools selected had a 100% appearance rate, as demonstrated in appendixes a and b, a majority of the schools used for the purpose of this survey had only one or two appearances. This suggests that there is a great prevalence of universities similar in program prestige that were not selected for the sake of this study, thus demonstrating external validity. The less unique the sample, the easier it is to translate results. The NCAA recruiting policy acts as a constant, ensuring results be useful to all programs with the organization. Variation in athletic-recruiting budget in certain instances may prove to diminish the external validity, but not disable it. There is no doubt that the programs selected for this study maintain strong program prestige, this simply demonstrates that there are many programs like it, thus increasing likelihood of reproducing the results of the study. If the sample population included schools not exclusively from division one programs, external validity would be diminished.

Ethics

As an anonymous survey, there will be no ethical issues concerning this research nor should there be any hazard to the individual participants. The participants have no fear of false feedback, deception, or coercion. This study is for their benefit, and the NCAA as an organization. The schools participating in the study will not be anonymous however; one of the few ethical concerns would be a schools willingness to possibly help other schools, and ultimately NCAA division one basketball and football programs as a whole. The NCAA is an organization that thrives as its individual components succeed, thus reducing the likelihood of a negative stigma towards survey participants, dismissing a school’s possible concerns. If the results of this study support the hypothesis, beneficence will be paid to the additional student-athletes being recruited, and realization of program prestige within division one programs.

References

Barr, John and Rovegno, Lindsay. Outside the Lines: Text Appeal. ESPN Online. 31 May

2006. 12 May 2009<sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2461072>.

Bianchi, Mike. Rest of State Should Hate Florida Gators. Orlando Sentinel Online. . 14

January 2007. 12 May 2009<www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/college/

orl-bianchi1407jan14,0,1740862.column?coll=orl-sports-headlines-college>.

Bronson, Ron. Twitter vs. The NCAA Ban On Text Messaging. Journal of Educational Social Media. 12-May-09 http://wwww.edsocialmedia.com/2008/12/using- twitter- for- recruiting/ . February, 2009.

Buckson, Robin and Chengelis, Angelique S. Text Messages Sent to Woo Players. 8 May 2009 The Detroit News. <www.buckeyeplanet.com forum/archive/index.php/ t-18520.html>.

Butts, Frank. Role Conflict of Athletic Administrators in Monitoring Social Networks.

2009.

Crabtree, Jeremy. Recruiting Changes Discussed at AFCA Convention. January 2007. 09

May 2009 <footballrecruiting.rivals.com/content.asp?cid=627765>.

Dorsey, Patrick. Recruiting Tech-niques. Daily Northwestern. 4 November 2005. 12 May 2009 <www.buckeyeplanet.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-18520.html>.

Durrenberger, Charles. UA Coaches Now Recruit by Text Messages. Arizona Daily Star

Online. 29 December 2005. 12 May 2009<www.azstarnet.com/sports/

109054>.

DeBrock, L., & Hendricks, W. (1997) Setting rules in the NCAA cartel.

In W. Hendricks (Ed.), Advances in the economics of sport,

vol. 2, (pp. 179-201). Greenwich, Conn. and London: JAI Press.

ESPN. ESPNU Campus Call: Should Coaches Be Allowed to Text Message Recruits?. .

17 November 2006. 12 May 2009<sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/ news/story?id=2655717>.

Fleisher, A. A., Goff, B. L., & Tollison R. D. (1992). The National

Collegiate Athletic Association: A study in cartel behavior.

Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Fort, R., & Quirk, J. (2001). The college football industry. In J. Fizel,

E. Gustafson, & L. Hadley (Eds.), Sports economics: Current

research. Westport, CT: Prager.

Gordon, Ken. Coaches Turn to Text Messages to Stay in Touch with High-School Players.

The Coulmbus Dispatch. 20 January 2006. 12 May 2009 <www.buckeyeplanet.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-18520.html>.

Hoyle, R. H., Harris, M. J., & Judd, C. M. (2002).  Research methods in social relations;

seventh ed. York, PA: Thomson Learning, Inc.

Knobler, Mike. Text Messaging Recruits a Cause for NCAA Concern. Atlanta

Constitution Journal Online. 5 January 2007. 20 12 May 2009<www.ajc.com/sports/content/sharedblogs/ajc/cfbrecruit/entries/

. 2007/01/05/text_messaging.html>.

Marot, Michael. NCAA tries to monitor hi-tech recruiting. USA Today. 2007

Mellinger, Sam. Texting A Key Tool For Coaches. Double-A Zone. 12 May 2009

<www.doubleazone.com/Texting%20a%20key%20tool%20tool%20for% 20coaches.htm>.

Mione, Michelle. The Players Perspective. Interactive Communication Technologies. 10

August 2006

Staples, Andy. A History of Recruiting, Time-Honored Tradition. Sports Illustrated.

2008.

Steinback, Paul. Technology Rules. Athletic Business. 12 May 2009 July http://www.athleticbusiness.com/articles/article.aspx?articleid=181 2008

Text-messaging ban to be implemented Aug. 1. The Associated Press. April, 2007.

Retrieved May. 12, 09  http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2850555

Appendix A

Please see attached excel spreadsheet:  501- Appendix A – Associated Press Basketball Poll 2007-2009

Appendix B

Please see attached excel spreadsheet:  501- Appendix A – Associated Press Football Poll 2006-2008

Appendix C

NCAA Recruiting and Communication Technology Coaches Survey

Introduction:

Thank you for taking the time to fill out this 23 question survey. The purpose of this survey is to gain insight into the effect communication technology has had on the NCAA recruiting process. Furthermore, the author seeks clarification as to whether the adoption of communication technology related methods have a direct relation with program prestige. This Survey is voluntary, and will remain anonymous. Answer each question to the best of your ability; if you feel you cannot or do not want to answer a question, feel free to skip it.

Instructions:

Please answer on a scale of 1-10, 1 being the lowest/ strongly disagree, 10 being the highest/ strongly agree, U/K for unknown.

  1. Communication technology (text-messages, social-networking-sites, e-mail, Blackberrys, video-chat) has impacted the way you recruit student-athletes. ___________
  1. Communication technology (CT) has improved your ability to recruit student-athletes. ___________
  1. CT has in particular instances made the difference in receiving a commitment from a student-athlete. ___________
  1. CT has in particular instances made the difference in losing a commitment from a student-athlete to another school. ____________
  1. CT has allowed more student-athletes to be discovered. ___________
  1. Student-athletes being recruited, enjoy the additional attention received from coaches due to CT. __________
  1. Upon attending your university, a student-athlete voiced his displeasure with the recruiting process in regards to CT. __________
  1. CT has burdened student-athletes with an invasion of privacy. __________
  1. CT gives leeway regarding creative interpretation of NCAA recruiting guidelines. __________
  1. Certain coaches take advantage of CT in their quest to recruit student-athletes. __________
  1. There is a direct relationship between coaches that are CT savvy and program prestige. ________
  1. CT has lead to increased recruiting budgets. _________
  1. Coaches in the public eye have an unfair advantage recruiting student-athletes through utilizing CT. ___________
  1. University of Alabama’s head football coach Nick Saban, and University of Southern California’s Pete Carroll are examples of a coaches that are at advantage due to being in the public eye and utilizing CT. ____________
  1. The NCAA responded appropriately with its 2007 ban of text-messages. __________
  1. The NCAA should reconsider the prohibited use of text-messages. ___________
  1. The NCAA won the technology battle in regards to recruiting. _____________
  1. Twitter represents opportunity for coaches in the recruiting process. _________
  1. You are aware of the problem direct-messaging brings to the table. _________
  1. Twitter should be banned. _________
  1. You utilize some form of video-chat. ________
  1. Video-chat should be banned. _____________
  1. Your university has added employees in the field of recruiting and  CT. ___________

Appendix D

NCAA Recruiting and Communication Technology Players Survey

Introduction:

Thank you for taking the time to fill out this 28 question survey. The purpose of this survey is to gain insight into the effect communication technology has had on the NCAA recruiting process. Furthermore, the author seeks clarification as to whether the adoption of communication technology related methods have a direct relation with program prestige. This Survey is voluntary, and will remain anonymous. Answer each question to the best of your ability; if you feel you cannot or do not want to answer a question, feel free to skip it.

Instructions:

Please answer on a scale of 1-10, 1 being the lowest/ strongly disagree, 10 being the highest/ strongly agree, U/K for unknown.

  1. Communication technology (text-messages, social-networking-sites, e-mail, Blackberrys, video-chat) has impacted the way student-athletes are being recruited. ___________
  1. Communication technology (CT) has improved your relationship with coaches. ___________
  1. The adoption of new methods via CT demonstrates that a coach is with the times, thus making his program more attractive. __________
  1. CT has in particular instances made the difference in committing to a program. ___________
  1. CT has in particular instances made the difference in withdrawing a commitment and going to another program. ____________
  1. CT has allowed more student-athletes to be discovered. ___________
  1. CT has burdened student-athletes with an invasion of privacy. __________
  1. CT gives leeway regarding creative interpretation of NCAA recruiting guidelines. __________
  1. Certain coaches take advantage of CT in their quest to recruit student-athletes. __________
  1. There is a direct relationship between coaches that are CT savvy and program prestige. ________
  1. Coaches in the public eye represent a more attractive program. ___________
  1. CT allows an insider perspective to major universities programs. __________
  1. University of Alabama’s head football coach Nick Saban, and University of Southern California’s Pete Carroll are examples of a coaches that are at advantage due to being in the public eye and utilizing CT. ____________
  1. The NCAA responded appropriately with its 2007 ban of text-messages. __________
  1. The NCAA should reconsider the prohibited use of text-messages. ___________
  1. The NCAA won the technology battle in regards to recruiting. _____________
  1. The NCAA should fully embrace CT and its role in recruiting student-athletes. _____________
  1. Twitter (a social networking site) represents opportunity for student-athletes in the recruiting process. _________
  1. Twitter represents opportunity in the recruiting process for coaches. ________
  1. Direct-messaging poses the same problem as text-messaging for student-athletes. ___________
  1. You have a Twitter account. ___________
  1. Twitter should be banned. _________
  1. Facebook (social-networking site) is often used as a recruiting tool ____________
  1. Facebook should be more closely monitored and regulated. _________
  1. Facebook should be banned. ____________
  1. Coaches have contacted you via Skype, or other forms of video-chat. ________
  1. Video-chat should be banned. _____________
  1. Your high-school assisted you has in the field of recruiting and  CT. ___________.

Appendix E

NCAA and Communication Technology Budget Survey

Introduction:

The purpose of this survey is to gain insight into the possible budget increases or decreases for athletic departments as a result of implementing new recruiting methods in the areas of communication technology. Examples of communication technology include but are not limited to social networking sites, video chat, text-messaging, and Blackberrys. It is the researcher’s goal to discover if additional funds have been granted to add technology, as well as the employees to understand, implement, and utilize such technology in an effort to recruit student-athletes; or if spending has been decreased due to a decreased amount of in-person-face-to-face time, cutting down travel and transportations costs. This Survey is voluntary, and will remain anonymous. Answer each question to the best of your ability; if you feel you cannot or do not want to answer a question, feel free to skip it.

  1. Your athletic department (AD) has increased spending in on technology hardware and or software. Examples of hardware included but are not limited to computers, web cams, and mobile devices. Examples of software include but are not limited to Skype (programs used with web-cams), digital editing programs (moviemaking programs). ______________________
  1. Your AD has increased spending on phone plans to utilize use of data such as text-messaging and internet use. _________________
  1. Your AD has increased spending in the areas of research in the areas of communication technology and benefits to recruiting student athletes. _____________
  1. Your AD has increased spending to hire employees who understand and can train other staff members in the area of communication technology. ____________
  1. Your AD has increased spending per recruit at a higher rate than inflation due to communication technology. ______________
  1. Your AD has decreased coaches travel expenditures due to communication technology. ______________
  1. Your AD has saved money due to communication technology. _____________
Advertisements