As NCAA Division I coaches feel greater pressure to produce winning teams while ensuring that athletes remain eligible and progress toward degrees to avoid sanctions under the NCAA’s academic reform initiatives, concerns regarding the clustering of athletes into limited numbers of academic majors has increased. Academic clustering occurs when 25% or more of the members of one team share a single academic major (Case, Greer, & Brown, 1987). Recent studies have extended the analysis of clustering to include the disparate impact on white and minority football players in a single athletic conference (Fountain & Finley, 2009), as well as consideration of female basketball players throughout Division I (Paule, 2010). To date, these studies have provided a snapshot of teams for a given season. This study extends the understanding of clustering by examining one football program over a period of ten years, which allowed for greater understanding of the movement of players into and out of majors, especially the movement into a clustered major midway through their academic experience. Media guides from one BCS football program were used to track the listed majors of 349 players, from 2000 through 2009. Results indicated that players migrated into a single clustered major over time and that a significant number of touted recruits and National Football League draftees selected the clustered major. Further, players who had listed general education (University Studies) in their first media guide appearances frequently selected the clustered major.

Academic Clustering: A Longitudinal Analysis of a Division I Football Program

A comparison of the college selection process for international and domestic student-athletes at NCAA Division I universities

Athletes have the right to combine their sport and higher education careers (e.g., dual career), but differences in the recognition of the student-athlete's status and availability of dual career programmes and services exist worldwide. The purpose of this study was to investigate the dual career phenomenon through the international student-athletes' views. Student-athletes competing at the 2017 Summer Universiade were recruited to respond a 31-item online survey encompassing demographic characteristics (Q1-8), sport and university engagement (Q9-13), student-athletes' knowledge and possible sources of information regarding dual career (Q14-22); and dual career support at personal, sport, and academic levels (Q23-31). Four hundred twenty-six respondents (males: 46%, females 54%), competing in 22 different sports (individual: 74%, team: 26%) from Africa (4%), America (20%), Asia (34%), Europe (39%), and Oceania (3), had experienced previous international sports events (94%). Differences among continents emerged for sport (p<0.001) and university (p = 0.039) engagement, and transfer time from home to the training venue (p = 0.030). Individual sports student-athletes showed higher sport engagement (p = 0.003) compared to team sports counterparts. Differences among university majors emerged for university engagement (p<0.001). Long absence from classes (57%), limited leisure time (50%), financial uncertainty (44%), reduction of training due to education (42%), and overload feelings (37%) emerged. The majority of the sample resulted not familiar with dual career programmes (60%) and public authorities (69%), envisaging national dual career policies at university (37%) and sport (25%) levels. Multiple relevant dual career supporters at personal, sport, and university levels were identified, mainly parents (86%) and coaches (65%). To strengthen the potential of the student-athletes of the future, a dual career network should be established among several stakeholders, for transnational cooperation and sharing of knowledge and best practices through extensive communication between policy-makers, practitioners and those having a strong supportive dual career role (e.g., parents, coaches, and university sport staff).

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0223278&type=printable

Dual-career through the elite university student-athletes' lenses: The international FISU-EAS survey.

The purpose of this Literature review article is to examine the social, cultural, individual and institutional racist factors that pose challenges to many African American college athletes, both men and women, to develop skills outside sports that are necessary to succeed in college and life. The passion for athletics by Black youth has to be positioned within the wider racist environment that one is exposed to while growing up. The dominant presence of Blacks in the high profile sports of football, basketball and track and field while having lower graduation rates compared to White athletes deserves scholarly interrogation. This article uses the Critical Race Theory (CRT) and Student Involvement Theory frameworks to explain the phenomena of Black student athletes in College and the challenges that they encounter as they pursue both athletic and academic success. Based on Edwards’ (2000) contextualization of the Black athlete which is premised on the Critical Race Theory (CRT) and Astin’s (1984) Student Involvement Theory (SIT), this article examines the following issues: The legacy of racism and discrimination; Black athletes and labor on campus; sport and race ideology; graduation rates and the academic challenges faced by Black student athletes. The academic challenges that Black athletes face while pursuing a dual objective of excelling in athletics and getting a college education are situated within the racial laden learning environment characterizing the Predominantly White Colleges (PWC) in the U.S. This paper contends that society, institutions of higher learning and the individual student have to collaborate so as to put the athlete on a path to success in college and in life.

/pdf/challenges-of-being-a-black-student-athlete-on-u-s-college-q4n0g1a4ah.pdf

Challenges of Being a Black Student Athlete on U.S. College Campuses

Despite the worldwide popularity of running as a sport for children, relatively little is known about its impact on injury and illness. Available studies have focused on adolescent athletes, but these findings may not be applicable to preadolescent and pubescent athletes. To date, there are no evidence or consensus-based guidelines identifying risk factors for injury and illness in youth runners, and current recommendations regarding suitable running distances for youth runners at different ages are opinion based. The International Committee Consensus Work Group convened to evaluate the current science, identify knowledge gaps, categorise risk factors for injury/illness and provide recommendations regarding training, nutrition and participation for youth runners.

https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/bjsports/55/6/305.full.pdf

Youth running consensus statement: minimising risk of injury and illness in youth runners.

Studies on graduation rates of college athletes have typically utilized subdivisions based on race, gender, and sport to allow for more transparent scrutiny of potential problem areas. However, subdivision by race has not been utilized when examining clustering of football players into academic majors. Clustering occurs when 25% or more of an athletic team shares a single academic major (Case, Greer, & Brown, 1987). Football media guides from Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) schools were utilized to determine the academic majors of upperclassmen to explore whether race could be a factor in academic clustering. The results showed that Minority players were clustered into specific academic programs at greater rates than their White counterparts. While academic clustering occurred for both White and Minority players, the clustering of Minority players involved greater numbers of players enrolled in clustered majors, as well as the existence of a second clustered major at several schools. At six of the schools in the study, 75% or more of the Minority players were enrolled into just two academic majors.

Academic Majors of Upperclassmen Football Players in the Atlantic Coast Conference: An Analysis of Academic Clustering Comparing White and Minority Players

Review of Literature College selection is often a difficult process for students in general and is even more complicated for student athletes, particularly those who are recruited by numerous schools (Klenosky, Templin, & Troutman, 2001). To date, considerable academic attention has been paid to assessing the relative importance of factors student athletes consider during their college selection process. The traditionally used method has been to present student athletes with a survey through which various factors were rated. The factors receiving the highest mean scores were then considered to be the most important to the prospects at the time that they made their final college selection. Factors that were commonly cited as important in the college-selection literature in regard to student athletes were concisely detailed in Kankey and Quarterman (2007), and included: (a) opportunity to play (Forseth, 1987; Johnson, 1972; Konnert & Geise, 1987; Slabik, 1995); (b) academic factors (Bukowski, 1995; Cook, 1994; Forseth, 1987, Mathes & Gurney, 1985; Reynaud, 1998; Slabik, 1995); (c) amount of scholarship (Doyle & Gaeth, 1990; Ulferts, 1992); and (d) head coach (Cook, 1994; Mathes & Gurney, 1985; Slabik, 1995). Recent studies in this area utilized the traditional method for college selection studies. In both studies, Finley (2005), and Kankey and Quarterman (2007), original surveys were constructed and tested for validity and reliability. Surveys were then distributed in packets to coaches with an accompanying cover letter, instructions for administering the survey, and an addressed and stamped return packet. Both studies utilized five-point scales to elicit scores intended to reflect relative importance of numerous factors. Kankey and Quarterman (2007) elected to use a scale ranging from 5 (extremely important) to 1 (unimportant), while the scale used by Finley (2005) was a traditional Likert scale, ranging from 5 (very important) to 1 (very unimportant), with a neutral category. Karney and Quarterman (2007) surveyed members of NCAA Division I softball teams in Ohio. Participants (N=196) represented 10 of the 11 programs in the state. The descriptive analysis demonstrated that this population considered availability of major or academic program, head coach, career opportunities after graduation, and social atmosphere of the team to be the most important college choice factors, with the mean score for each being above 4 (very important). Finley (2005) sought to determine the most salient aspects of college selection among NCAA Division III cross country runners (N=427) from around the country. Results indicated that academic reputation, major or degree program, atmosphere of the campus, and the success of the cross country program were the most important. Finley (2005) also determined that the importance of team-related factors was related to the gender and ability of the athletes. Finley split the sample by gender and then subdivided each gender-group into higher and lower ability groups based on the best cross country time each participant had recorded in high school. Several factors proved to be more important to higher ability males than the other groups: The team's performance in the prior season, the team's performance over the last several seasons, the performance of individuals on the team last year, and the number of award-winning athletes from the program were all more important to higher-ability males than to lower-ability males or female cross country runners in both the higher and lower ability groups. While the aforementioned research was important and contributed to the understanding of the college selection of student athletes, it did not address the question of why these factors are important. Klenosky, Templin, and Troutman (2001) introduced a new strategy for assessing college selection criteria with an eye for understanding the underlying values of the student athletes at the time they selected a college. …

An application of means-end theory to analyze the college selection process of female athletes at an NCAA division II--university

Road Racing and Youth Running: Cross Country Coaches' Perspectives

/pdf/an-investigation-of-successful-football-bowl-subdivision-3umlz5sn95.pdf

An investigation of successful Football Bowl Subdivision coaches and the disproportional academic achievement of their White and African-American football players

Peter Finley

Papers

Academic Majors of Upperclassmen Football Players in the Atlantic Coast Conference: An Analysis of Academic Clustering Comparing White and Minority Players

Academic Clustering: A Longitudinal Analysis of a Division I Football Program

An application of means-end theory to analyze the college selection process of female athletes at an NCAA division II--university

Road Racing and Youth Running: Cross Country Coaches' Perspectives

An investigation of successful Football Bowl Subdivision coaches and the disproportional academic achievement of their White and African-American football players