INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS AT CONSORTIUM INSTITUTIONS:

More Than Mere Fun and Games

Summary of the findings

of a survey of and focus group interviews conducted at the

13 members institutions of the Christian College Consortium

James Mathisen, Wheaton College

and Ronald Burwell, Messiah College

Principal Investigators

June 2001

This report is an expanded version of a paper presented at

INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS

AND THE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE:

Rhetoric and Reality

A conference sponsored by the Christian College Consortium,

Wheaton College, Wheaton, Illinois, May 31 – June 2, 2001

James Mathisen

Professor of Sociology, Wheaton College, Wheaton, Illinois

and

Ronald Burwell

Associate Dean and Professor of Sociology, Messiah College,

Grantham, Pennsylvania

NOTE: Do not circulate this document beyond the Christian College Consortium without permission of Thomas Englund and the two authors.

Introduction

In the fall of 2000, President Tom Englund of the Christian College Consortium and a five-member planning committee began discussions of a conference on the role of intercollegiate athletics on their campuses scheduled for spring, 2001. One suggestion from the committee was to commission a survey of the 13 campuses to determine current attitudes of constituent groups about athletics. By early December, James Mathisen of Wheaton College and Ronald Burwell of Messiah College had agreed to do a survey and present salient findings at the conference at Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois.

President Englund and the planning committee were responding to previous discussions among the presidents of the 13 member institutions of the Consortium—Asbury College, KY; Bethel College, MN; George Fox University, OR; Gordon College, MA; Greenville College, IL; Houghton College, NY; Malone College, OH; Messiah College, PA; Seattle Pacific University, WA; Taylor University, IN; Trinity International University, IL; Westmont College, CA; and Wheaton College, IL. President Englund and the 13 presidents agreed that a conference addressing the role of intercollegiate athletics and the importance of a vision that integrates athletics into the missions of their institutions could be beneficial to the Consortium and their individual campuses.

As part of a purpose statement for the spring 2001 conference, the planning committee identified two major concerns that provided the stimulus for the eventual survey:

(1) Do we, in fact, have a shared vision across all constituencies of an institution regarding the role of the intercollegiate athletic program? Can that vision be—has that vision been—articulated effectively? and

(2) Are we confident that the vision is understood by all relevant parties, i.e., senior administration, the faculty, the board, the staff of the athletic program, the student body, and alumni?

In addition to these two concerns regarding a vision for the role of athletics, the committee identified three specific substantive areas that needed the researchers’ attention—institutional affiliations, resource allocations, and gender equity.

By late January, Mathisen and Burwell had determined that in lieu of simply “doing a survey,” a combination of three forms of data might more adequately address the stated concerns—(1) a perusal and summary of the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act (EADA) reports that colleges and universities must submit annually by October 15 to the U.S. Department of Education; these reports are to be made available to the public, and Mathisen and Burwell requested that each college provide a copy of its 2000 report consisting of information for the 1999-2000 academic year; (2) a survey prepared by the researchers of five constituencies—athletes, coaches, non-athlete students, faculty members, and administrators—from the 13 Consortium members; 100 surveys were sent to each institution, distributed by the athletics director’s office, and returned by mid-April, 2001; and (3) focus group interviews on 7 of the 13 campuses conducted by Mathisen and Burwell of coaches, faculty members, and athletes, plus an interview with a senior athletics administrator; the 7 institutions were geographically diverse, represented both national organizations (NAIA and NCAA), and included schools that did and did not play football; the focus group interviews were conducted in March and April, 2001.

Athletic directors of the Consortium institutions deserve a great deal of credit for acting as conduits and facilitators of the data gathering and for assisting Mathisen and Burwell in myriad ways. Mathisen received 12 of the 13 EADA reports by early May. By then, Burwell received 893 completed survey forms, approximately 69% of the total sent to the campuses; and Mathisen and Burwell completed 21 focus groups interviews and additional one-on-one conversations at Houghton, Malone, Messiah, Seattle Pacific, George Fox, Trinity International, and Wheaton by late April. Mathisen and Burwell have shared the data gathering and interpretation responsi-bilities, with Mathisen having primary responsibility for the EADA reports, Burwell mainly responsible for the survey, and sharing proportionate responsibility for the focus group interpretations. This clearly has been a joint effort between the two researchers, and Tom Englund and the planning committee have been singular in their support of the research effort.

I. What the EADA Reports Tell: An Athletics Profile of the Christian College Consortium

From the October 2000 EADA reports, it is possible to construct a “profile” of athletic

participation in the Christian College Consortium (CCC). Obviously, that profile is only as valid as the aggregated data provided by the institutional representatives who completed the forms. It is also apparent that the versions of the form completed by NAIA members and by NCAA members do not coincide. As a result, this summary is not as helpful as one might hope.

The first obvious observation is that the Consortium colleges are divided nearly evenly between the NAIA and the NCAA for their national affiliations. Six schools (Asbury, Houghton, Malone, Taylor, Trinity International, and Westmont) are in the NAIA; six schools (Bethel, George Fox, Gordon, Greenville, Messiah, and Wheaton) are in NCAA Division III; and one university (Seattle Pacific) is in the NCAA Division II. Generally speaking, the NCAA schools are larger than those in the NAIA; 4 of the 5 smallest schools are in the NAIA; the 4 largest in the NCAA. The “average” CCC institution had approximately 1700 undergraduates enrolled for the 1999-2000 academic year. Of those, 59% were females (about 1000) and 41% were males (about 700). The enrollment range in the CCC was between 837 students at Trinity International and 2735 students at Messiah. (Gordon College is probably the median school, but its enrollment figure for 1999-2000 was not provided.)

An average of 300 athletes participate in 15 intercollegiate sports at Consortium schools. Within the Consortium, those numbers of athletes range from 143 (Asbury) to 470 (Bethel), and they are participating in a range of 8 sports (Houghton) to 20 (Messiah and Wheaton). 45% of the athletes—about 135—are females, and they are participating in an average of 7 sports; 55% of the athletes are males—about 165—participating in 8 sports. These averages mean that male athletes on average are 14% over represented in comparison to their proportion of the student body (55% athletes vs. 41% students). The overrepresentation of males ranges from –1% (actually an under representation of males at Houghton) to +22% (Malone; 21% at Bethel). If one were to compare the suggested variation of 5% used by the Office of Civil Rights in applying Title IX to these Consortium statistics, probably only two of the Consortium institutions—Houghton and Seattle Pacific—are in compliance with this proportionality test of Title IX.

About 18% of the average Consortium student body consists of athletes, a range of 11% athletes (Asbury) to 31% athletes (Greenville). Among female students, an average of 13.3% are athletes, a range of 8% (Asbury) to 21% (Trinity and Greenville). Apparently, 4 of the Consortium schools have no female head coaches of women’s athletic teams. Among male students, an average of 23.7%--nearly double that of females—are athletes. For males, the range is from 14% of the student body (Asbury and Houghton) to 43% (Greenville). Incidentally, four of the Consortium colleges who play football (Bethel, Greenville, Malone, and Trinity International) have at least 32% athletes—about 1/3 the total—among their student bodies.

Determining budgetary matters and total expenditures for athletics is a risky venture, given the varied manner of calculating these items in the reports. The total budgets for CCC schools average about $1.2 million, with an 11X range from about 20% of that (Asbury) to more than 2 times that average (Malone and Seattle Pacific). As one point of comparison, in their recent study The Game of Life (2001), authors James Shulman and William Bowen include 7 Division III colleges whose budgets ranged between $1.2 - $1.7 million (p. 231). One estimation they

also make is that the “true cost” of intercollegiate athletics probably is about 3 times that figure

at some schools (p. 250).

Another way to calculate the cost of athletics is as a percentage of the institution’s total budget. Unfortunately, the EADA reports filed by NAIA institutions do not provide that information. Within the Consortium, for 6 of the NCAA schools plus 1 NAIA school for which that information is available, the average cost of athletics is about 3 1/3% of the institutions’ total

budgets, ranging between 2.1% - 5.3%. 4 of the 7 schools reporting this datum spend between

2.1% - 2.6% of the budgets on athletics.

From the reports of those total athletics budgets, 2 items provide specific comparisons. First, 10 schools report the cost of recruiting athletes to enroll, and the average cost is $17,300. The range is between $4,500 - $31,100—a 7X differential—with 2 schools indicating recruiting costs for athletes are a part of the institutional admissions cost and not specified for athletics. Second, 7 of the Consortium schools—the 6 in the NAIA and the 1 in NCAA Division II—offer athletic

scholarships. The average amount expended institutionally on athletic aid is $530,000; here the

range is far greater than for recruiting, from only $4,500 to over $1,300,000.

Probably a more adequate way to think of athletic expenditures is to norm them by the number of students in the student body, or perhaps by the number of students participating in athletics. First, the average athletic expenditure per student in the Consortium is about $675, with a 9X range from $165 - $1450. The implication, for example, is that while Bethel College has a relatively large overall athletics budget, when that amount is divided among the nearly 2300 students at Bethel, the expenditure is more easily compared with a smaller student body such as that at Greenville.

Second, if the total expenditure is normed by the total number of athletes, the average athletics expenditure per athlete in the Consortium is at least $4,000. The range, however, is less than for the total students’ range above, or about 6X between $1,540 - $9,670. Two of the schools—Seattle Pacific and Malone—have athletic budgets somewhat higher than the other 11 Consortium schools, and their higher amounts skew upward these averages, both for total students and for athletes (not surprisingly, both schools’ budgets include athletic scholarships and thus higher overall expenditures). In the case of the average cost per athlete, 8 of the schools spend within $100 of the median expenditure of $630. Stated yet another way, the lowest Consortium figure of $1540 is significantly lower than the average of $2,600 that Shulman and Bowen report in The Game of Life for their 7 coed liberal arts colleges. Finally, the EADA reports allocate the total expenditures according to the gender of the participants; approximately 57% of the total expenditures in the CCC are allocated to male sports, in comparison to 55% of participants being male. Not unexpectedly, the 6 schools that play football generally spend more than 57% of their budgets for males, while those who do not play football spend less than that.

In sum, this “athletics profile” of the 13 CCC schools is barely that. Similarities do exist, but there is a great deal of variation among the 13 members institutions, beginning with their nearly equal memberships in the two national organizations, NAIA and NCAA. Nearly half of the 13 schools play football, and those who do have an average of 70 athletes on those teams. Add to that the 11X range among the 13 budgets for athletics, and the variations are significant, due in part to some budgets’ including athletic scholarship monies. On the other hand, perhaps the most salient findings from the EADA reports are these: (1) about 300 students on average are athletes—nearly 18% of the total students; (2) at 4 schools (that play football), about 1/3 of all males are athletes; (3) females compose 45% of the total athletes, receiving 43% of the total expenditures; (4) on average, athletes are funded well—over $4,000 each—with the lowest school over $1,500; and (5) all 7 schools which report total institutional budgets spend at least 2% of those budgets on athletics, with the percentage as high as 5.3%.

II. What the Surveys and Focus Groups Tell: A Mixed, But Generally Positive, Story

Vision

The initial “major areas of concern” giving rise to the conference and to the survey were whether there was a “vision” for athletics present on the CCC campuses. Is there a vision? Is it widely known and shared? In order to answer these questions, both the survey and focus groups provide answers. (See Appendices A and B for detailed summaries.)

From the survey: Approximately 50% of the people surveyed agreed that a clear vision for athletics was being communicated on their campuses (ques.1). Interestingly, the greatest disagreement with this statement came from coaches (40.3% disagreed). When asked about the connection between the “rhetoric” and the “reality” about athletics on their campuses, again the coaches were the most skeptical group (31.9%). There was strong support for the idea that athletics on Christian college campuses should be different (ques.4), with an excess of 70% of all groups agreeing that athletics should be different on a Christian campus. Thus, it would seem that the “vision” does exist, with some measure of agreement that it should be different on these campuses compared with other schools.

From the focus groups: The general impression from these groups was that whatever vision for athletics existed, it was largely shared by members of the athletic department but not necessarily understood or known widely on campus. It appears that a vision can be shared by all those involved in the athletics program (e.g., coaches and athletes), and that the coaches and the athletic director are key players in getting this message out. These views also support the finding that about 1 of 3 faculty and non-athletes were unsure of a vision. When faculty were asked about a “vision” for athletics, many did not seem to have a clear sense of what it might be, or whether multiple visions might exist. A few commented on the emphasis by some coaches and teams on Christian missions and service. For some coaches, a question also exists about adequate understanding by their administrations of a vision for athletics. More than one athlete noted that the places where the vision was articulated for them included both recruiting conversa-tions with coaches and pre-season sessions held by the athletic director or by coaches. Then, as will be noted in our conclusion, a “vision for excellence” is often invoked, without specifying exactly what is being meant.

To probe further, a series of 5 possible “purposes” for athletics on Christian college campuses

were provided (ques.41-45); respondents were asked to rank order the 5 from most to least important. The responses are revealing. To athletes and coaches, the #1 purpose for athletics is as a means of evangelism and ministry. Meanwhile, faculty and administrators rank recruitment of students as the #1 purpose of athletics, with evangelism only #3. Finally, non-athletes see extra-curricular involvement as #1. One possible interpretation for the 5 groups giving 3 different answers for their #1 purpose of athletics is that they bring different visions of what athletics is all about. While “vision” and “purpose” are not synonymous, they are related, and the data suggest some clarification in the vision for athletics on CCC campuses might be a helpful undertaking.

Christian distinctives

In a sense, the topic of “Christian distinctives” could fit under the above topic of vision since, for many, a part of the vision for athletics at CCC schools involves Christian distinctives or dimensions. For some who might have wondered, there is strong evidence that all groups agree that the CCC schools are all providing distinctively Christian approaches to their intercollegiate athletics programs, especially as experienced by the athletes. Several survey questions tested support for these “Christian dimensions” of athletics. For example, there was a range of support for the idea that athletics “enhances spiritual development” (ques.2). The most supportive of this idea were coaches (95.9%) and faculty (75.0%), followed by athletes (69.6%) and administrators (71.7%). Less support for the idea came from non-athlete students (42.8%). By contrast, when asked if coaches had a unique role in “transmitting Christian values” (ques.29), most respondents disagreed (total sample: 65.2 % disagreed).

When asked if there was an inherent conflict between being a Christian and an athlete, there was little support for this idea (total sample: 12.5% agree). Other questions (24, 25) tested whether there was a conflict between being a Christian and winning and between being a Christian college and being part of a particular athletic conference. In neither case was there support for some sort of conflict in these areas (winning; conference affiliations). Likewise, although these are Christian colleges, there was not much support for scheduling more athletic contests against Christian colleges (ques.23) (13% to 31% depending on the particular grouping).

Focus groups: It was clear from the focus groups that almost everyone sees the athletic program as a place where Christian distinctives can have a place. There was a recurring theme of seeing participation in athletics as an important place to learn spiritual lessons. In addition, sports were viewed as providing an avenue for evangelism and service. These concepts loom large in many of the “visions” that were suggested for athletics. One school makes a point of developing service projects related to team trips. Many noted the idea that when one is competing in athletics, it is a public forum that is available to demonstrate Christian qualities. Thus, “how you play” can have an impact on fans and opponents. Athletes were often profound in articulating the importance of team devotions or team Bible studies and saw this as part of the value of their athletic experiences.

To be fair, there were several cautions as well. One faculty member cautioned about “character building” having been replaced by a professionalization of sport. Another was concerned with tendencies toward “civil religion” in the college’s athletics program. Still another stated that coaches have said, “You can have a competitive team, or you can have a Christian team; but there are not enough Christian athletes who will come here.” One coach cautioned about “gloating,” while one athlete was concerned with some coaches pushing a spiritual vision down the throats of some athletes. But on balance, these were minor concerns relative to an over-whelmingly positive understanding of the Christian distinctiveness of the athletics program on CCC campuses.

Satisfaction

A major focus of this research was simply to discover the current status of athletic programs at CCC campuses. It is natural, then, to ask whether there is a high level of “satisfaction” with the athletic programs at these 13 colleges and universities. We can summarize satisfaction issues under three headings: general satisfaction, satisfaction with resources, and satisfaction with conferences and affiliations (e.g., NAIA and NCAA).

General satisfaction

Item #6 provides an overview of the level of satisfaction with the schools’ athletic programs. In examining the responses, a continuum of satisfaction emerges with the coaches being the least satisfied, the administration being the most satisfied, and the students and faculty in the middle. In most cases, however, the satisfaction levels exceeded 50%. Here is what the continuum looks like:

“My college provides adequate support for the athletics program”

Least Satisfied Most Satisfied

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Coaches Athletes Faculty Non Athletes Administration

36.6% 53.2% 57.8% 61.8% 71.7%

Another question asks if the current athletics program, in general, is “good and does not need any changes” (ques.33). Interestingly, the majority of respondents disagreed with this statement. Thus, even though the majority sees the college as providing adequate support for the athletic program, they also see a need for some changes from the current status quo. Finally, when asked if there was “too much emphasis on the athletics program” (ques.10), the majority also rejected this statement. Respondents to the survey do not see athletics as overemphasized or under supported. Likewise, in another item (ques.8), the various groups rejected the idea that athletics had become “more like a big business.” In sum, it appears there is a fair amount of satisfaction with the athletics programs (with the exception of the coaches).

Focus groups: Generally, the same patterns found in the survey were reflected in the focus groups. Faculty was quite positive about the athletic programs. They felt that the athletes were the kinds of students that they wanted on the campus. They also saw the coaches as “allies” in the educational process. For example, one faculty member said that he felt the coaches were diligent in making sure that athletes completed their academic work and acted responsibly in their role as a student. A few faculty members did indicate some concern about the allocation of scarce institutional resources on athletic programs and facilities. One faculty member lamented the fact that money had been spent on a new facade for the gymnasium while the library book budget had either declined or not kept up with the cost of living. But this was definitely a minority viewpoint. Non-athlete students and administrators were also very supportive of the athletic program and saw it as being a valuable part of the college.

The most negative comments in focus groups came from the coaches’ groups. Typically the coaches indicated a fair amount of dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs in their athletic programs. Their discontent was most often expressed with regard to “resources” [see below]. Coaches also did not feel as supported as they would have liked to be, whether by faculty colleagues, students in general, or the administration. There was a certain sense that the coaches felt they were under appreciated and were “unsung heroes” on their campuses.

Resources

Some of the specific questions on resources touch on several areas that are possible points of tension. Item 14 states: “The amount of money spent on athletics at our college is just right.” All five groups disagree with this statement, with coaches the strongest in their disagreement. Unfortunately, we cannot tell exactly what the responses mean. What do people think? Are we spending “too much” or “too little” on athletics? We cannot be sure, but it could well be the case that both coaches and others disagree with the statement, but have opposite views. It is likely that coaches want more spending on athletics, while faculty and administration may wish for less spending on athletics. In retrospect, this item should probably have been worded differently.

Nevertheless, several other items gave us additional information on resource allocation. For example, in response to the statement that we should “add more sports,” there was a mixed reaction to this idea (ques.32). As might be expected, administrators and coaches are the most opposed to adding additional sports (not surprising since the implication is that the pie would need to be divided by even more people). On the other hand, students (both athlete and non-athlete) are more supportive of adding sports. With regard to “increasing the overall resources for women’s athletics” (ques.31), there is more support. Some 40% of the total sample agrees that this should be done, with athletes and coaches being the most interested. Finally, when asked if there were “not enough personnel” in athletics, the only group that thought this was a problem in significant numbers was the coaches (ques.27).

In summary, it appears that the majority of those surveyed believed that athletics is adequately supported at their colleges. They also would like to see more support for women’s athletics and possibly some additional sports. Those most directly involved with the athletics program (coaches and athletes) were likely to want more support compared to other constituent groups.

Focus groups: It is fair to say that there was a major divide between those who were part of the athletic program (athletes and coaches) and the rest of the campus. While most faculty members felt that there was a strong support for athletics by the college as evidenced by either new facilities or additional sports teams, the coaches and athletes were not nearly as satisfied with the status quo. Consistently, the coaches complained of lack of resources, whether in terms of physical facilities, staff allocations, or support from the college community. Athletes and coaches easily constructed lists of desired facilities (“we need a field house; we need more locker rooms; we need more practice fields, etc.”). Members of the athletic community also lamented the fact that there were less support for the athletic teams in the form of attendance at games and matches. Some of the coaches and athletes from “minor sports” noted that they were lucky if they had any fans other than the parents of the players. While this picture differed somewhat from campus to campus, it seems that a previous pattern of large sectors of the campus turning out to support athletic contests is passing away. No doubt this is troubling to athletes who may have had more fans at their high school games than they have now at their college events.

Another major area of concern with regard to resources was that of financial aid. Coaches (and athletes) indicated that they did not feel that adequate resources were being made available to potential athletic recruits in the form of financial aid. This was true for both NAIA and NCAA schools. For NCAA schools, coaches felt that other D III schools competed unfairly in the “arms race” by offering more lucrative financial aid packages. One coach noted that he had “lost” a potential recruit to another D III school because it had offered $4000 more in financial aid.

Likewise, the NAIA schools felt that they were very limited in their ability to recruit by not having enough financial aid (e.g., athletic scholarships) to offer prospective athletes. Some NAIA schools noted that the problem had been exacerbated in the past few years by the need to divide the scholarship money up between male and female athletes.

Affiliations

One area of continuing interest to many colleges and universities is the question of conference and national affiliation. Some CCC colleges and universities have recently considered changing conferences and/or affiliations. Therefore, this topic was explored both in the survey questions and in the various focus groups.

Of the items dealing with this topic (Ques. 21, 22, 23, 25) only question 21 yielded any significant diversity of opinion. To the statement, “Our college should ‘move up’ in the level of competition,” there was a divided opinion. About a quarter of the respondents (led by coaches and athletes) felt the college should move up, while over 40% disagreed (led by faculty and administrators). The non-athlete students were largely undecided.

The other items seem to indicate a fairly widespread contentment with affiliations. Here are those items:

Our level of competition (national affiliations / conferences)

is just about right. (ques. 22) 63.2% agree

We should schedule more athletic contests against Christian

colleges and universities. (ques. 23) 25.5% agree

Our commitment to Christian values is at odds with our

conference affiliation. (ques. 25) 8.1% agree

In sum, with the exception of some desire on the part of athletic personnel to “move up,” the majority like the level of competition, do not want to play more Christian colleges, and do not see their conference at odds with the identity of the institution.

Focus groups: The issue of affiliation was explored in a variety of settings but was mostly of interest to coaches and athletes. Faculty were generally less interested in this issue, with the exception of some who wished that their school did not give athletic scholarships. Faculty who felt this way primarily desired that money spent on athletic scholarships might be given either as other types of scholarship or used elsewhere in the college budget (e.g., to buy books for the library).

For coaches and athletes, however, the issue of affiliation was very important. Based upon conversations with these groups it appears that affiliation issues are largely driven by these two questions:

“Who do we want to compete against?”

“Who is available for us to compete against?”

Rather than determining affiliation in the abstract or on some principled basis, the decision was typically determined by the constraints of who was available to schedule contests against.

Thus, some at one school said in effect, we want to be part of X conference. This conference is an NCAA III conference. Therefore, we will be NCAA III. In fact, there are no NAIA schools in our surrounding area. Thus, the NAIA is not an option for us. In some cases, the opposite scenario is likely (e.g., the competition available is NAIA; therefore, NAIA will be the affiliation). In those areas where there is a real choice among NAIA, NCAA III or NCAA II schools, then it is likely that issues of parity, ability to compete, and travel concerns might be prominent. However, for a number of CCC schools, it appears that there are fairly limited choices both in terms of conference affiliations and national affiliations.

The issue of athletic scholarships was also pursued in the focus groups. It was clear that for coaches and athletes in NAIA schools, these scholarships were extremely important. For some, they could not really comprehend being in a situation were there were no athletic scholarships (e.g., NCAA III). Several athletes were clear that they could not have come to their college without the athletic scholarships. However, when pressed, several athletes did affirm that the bottom line was more their actual cost to attend the college, not whether the financial aid was in the form of an athletic scholarship. Some coaches and athletes also were of the opinion that the quality of athletic performance was higher at NAIA schools than at NCAA III schools, since these programs and their athletes were “scholarship” [whether or not that is true would seem to be a matter of debate].

Academics

A major concern in higher education has been the potential—perhaps real—conflict between educational activities or values and athletics. Thus, several survey questions explored the potential conflicts between the athletes’ educational pursuits and their athletic endeavors.

To the statement, “The purposes of athletics often conflict with the purposes of education” (ques.5), the group which saw the greatest conflict was the faculty. Some 42.9% of the faculty agreed with this statement. In contrast, coaches and administrators saw the least conflict (12% to 17%). Between 26% to 35% of the students (athletes and non-athletes) saw a conflict. It is noteworthy that all of these percentages are still a minority (e.g., less than 50% agreement with the statement). It would appear that a majority of the members of these college communities do not see a conflict between the education mission of the college and the athletic program.

One of the most important issues surrounds the significant time commitment necessary to participate in intercollegiate athletics. Does this time commitment create problems in finding time to complete one’s academic work (ques.11)? Again, the faculty were more likely to see a problem here while the other groups did not see a problem. Over half of the faculty (58.9%) agreed that, “Currently, the time demands on athletes create problems with completing educational tasks.” The second highest agreement with this statement actually came from athletes, some 38% who also felt there were problems completing educational tasks. Very few coaches agreed that there was a time problem (11%). The degree of diversity on this issue suggests that we might focus more specific attention on this issue.

Several other items tapped relationships between academics and athletics. For example, a majority of both faculty and administrators would like to see coaches also “ . . . be classroom professors” (ques.26). In contrast, students and coaches did not strongly support this idea. When asked if non-athletic faculty members support athletics (ques.30), almost half of the coaches and administrators thought faculty members did not support athletics. In contrast, students (both athletes and non-athletes) did not see faculty as non-supportive of athletics.

Finally, when asked if athletes received “easier work loads” (ques.38) or encountered “lower academic demands” (ques.37), none of the groups answered in the affirmative. In fact, there was a pretty strong view across all the groups that athletes did not receive any favorable academic treatment (except for some flexibility in completing assignments [ques.35]). Athletes are seen as on a par with their classmates in terms of academic expectations.

Focus groups: The issues of conflicts between educational activities and athletics were explored in the various focus groups. Generally, the focus groups with athletes and coaches did not see problems in this area, while faculty were more mixed in their views. The athletes were often seen as above average students who took their academic work seriously and did not expect any particular special advantages or treatment. When asked about time, the athletes noted that, while they did face time pressures, they were able to cope with these pressures. Several athletes noted that they were actually more efficient and seemed to do better academically while in season as opposed to the off-season. They felt they were more vigilant in using their time wisely. Also, most athletes felt that other students also had time pressures created by their extra curricular activities (e.g., music, drama, internships, etc.) and did not see athletics as particularly different. One athlete actually felt less time pressure in college after having been a three-sport athlete in high school but now only concentrating on one sport in college. For the minority of faculty expressing concern, the issues included time demands, missed classes, and length of seasons.

An athletic or “jock culture”??

In some recent evaluations of athletics in higher education, especially at Division I schools, there appears to be a significant divide between athletes and the rest of the student body. To what extent might there be an emerging “jock culture” at CCC schools? Certain survey items probed the degree to which athletes were seen as a unique or distinctive group of students.

Question 9 asked whether there was a “real divide” between athletes and other students. The highest percentage of agreement with this idea was found among non-athlete students, 42.7% of whom agreed that there was a divide. One third of the athletes (36.1%) also felt that a divide existed between themselves and the rest of the students. In contrast, all of the non-student groups tended to reject this idea. This seems to be a point of discrepancy between the student and the non-student perspectives. A somewhat similar pattern existed with regard to item #12, which asked whether or not athletes thought of themselves as an exclusive group. Again, the students rather than administrators, faculty, and coaches agreed more with this statement.

At the same time, there seems to be a good deal of respect for athletes among the college community in general. When asked if “most non-athlete students . . . respect athletes,” the majority of all groups agreed that this respect existed (range of 56% to 64% agreement, ques. 17). Likewise, there was agreement that coaches were familiar figures on campus and not isolated from the community (ques.28). Finally, it should also be noted that the results of item #49, which asked about religious identity, show that there are only minor differences between the athletes and the rest of the student body. By a 4% difference, athletes were slightly less likely to rate themselves as a “strong Christian.” There is little evidence that athletes are more likely to be non-Christian students.

Focus groups: All the focus groups indicated that the students who were athletes were mainstream members of the student body. There was no indication that the athletes were “hired guns” who had little affinity with the ethos of the college. Instead, athletes were seen as both good students and also committed Christians. Some athletic personnel indicated that, as part of their recruiting conversations, they were clear with prospective students that they would be coming to an athletic program that explicitly articulated Christian concepts. There was a sense that it made little sense to recruit an athlete who would be a poor institutional fit. Perhaps the only indication from focus groups of a possible “jock culture” came from some who suggested that football was proportionately more likely to be the place where such a culture could possibly flourish. At the same time, the focus groups also indicated that strong pressures were brought to bear from a variety of sources to avoid this “jock culture.” In sum, the picture that emerges from CCC schools is that the problems of a “jock culture” found elsewhere (e.g., Div. I) do not seem to exist at these schools.

Gender

No doubt, issues of gender have been hot button topics during the past ten to twenty years in athletics. Everyone is aware of the impact and controversies created by the Title IX legislation and its subsequent enforcement. It is appropriate, therefore, to ask about the status of gender issues at CCC schools. Five survey items (#15, 18, 19, 20, and 31) tapped gender issues. Here are the items and the overall percentage of agreement with the statements:

Male athletes receive preferential treatment over female athletes 26% agree

Female athletes likely experience more role conflict than male athletes 24.9% agree

Women’s teams should have female head coaches 19.4% agree

People . . . worry too much about Title IX and equality for female athletes 9.2% agree

We probably should increase the overall resources for women’s athletics 40.7% agree

As one reviews this information, it is clear that there is a notable measure of support for the growing place of women’s athletics. It appears that Title IX is taken seriously, and there is continuing affirmation for increasing resources for women’s athletics (less than 25% disagreed with this idea). On the other hand, there is a certain acceptance level for having male coaches for women’s teams. There was not a mandate to have women’s teams have female head coaches. Only a minority of respondents thought that female athletes have more role conflict or that male athletes receive preferential treatment.

As one looks at the breakdown of these items by the five campus groups, several interesting trends are evident. For some of the items there is a fair amount of consensus. However, with regard to recruiting female head coaches, the administrators were the most likely to support this idea (47.8%), while the athletes were the least likely to support the statement (8.6%). When asked about “too much worry” about equality, the group most likely to support this statement was the coaches (16.4%; over 70% of both female and male coaches disagreed), although this is still a relatively low level of support. With regard to more resources for women’s athletics, the athletes were most likely to agree with this proposal (47.9%).

Finally, when these statements were further analyzed by breaking the respondents down by gender, the differences were in the expected directions. In other words, female respondents across the board were more supportive of women’s athletics while men, although supportive, were less so than women (e.g., just 6% of female athletes disagreed they needed more support).

Focus groups: The information from the focus groups corresponded to the survey data in that there was strong support for the place and importance of women’s athletics. In addition, it appears that the CCC schools have made significant efforts to equalize men’s and women’s athletics programs. At some of the schools visited, all the parties noted a sense of fairness in terms of access to resources. Whether it were travel money, post-season play, extended trips, or practice time, there was a perception that men’s and women’s teams received similar treatment. If this is true (and we have no reason to doubt it), then the CCC schools are to be commended in that they appear to have responded more favorably to Title IX than have some other schools.

The focus groups revealed one minor difference. At one school, the athletes actually indicated that the women’s ______ team had better practice facilities since their sport was “newer” to the college. About the only negative comment with regard to gender was the indication from some women athletes that they felt disadvantaged because male teams had a longer history and a larger alumni support base. Thus, they perceived it to be easier for men’s teams to raise money from alumni for either capital projects or special projects (e.g., overseas trips, etc.). The issues then of gender and alumni support might merit consideration by CCC schools.

Conclusion

As we have stood back and reflected in the short period of time since gathering the surveys, completing the focus group interviews, and then participating in the subsequent conference, a number of items stand out to us—both positively and as areas of moderate concern.

Positively, on balance the status of athletics on the 13 campuses of the Christian College Consortium is healthy and well. This appears so, despite little sense of a collectively shared “vision” for the role of athletics. We also have no sense if the status of athletics is any better or worse now than at some point in the past because our single data point does not allow that. At this time, however, probably the discussions above on “satisfaction” best indicate that a high level of widespread satisfaction with current athletic programs exists. Obviously, coaches are the most concerned and seemingly less satisfied than others, but that is understandable for the most part; they should be; their senses of calling and identity are at stake.

Satisfaction per se also extends to the distinctive spiritual dimension these athletic programs include. We were most impressed with the conviction and perspective with which the athletes themselves spoke about their experiences. Here the coaches often have been closely involved, and commendable spiritual mentoring often occurs. Athletes are generally committed to using their sport experiences as bases for their shared development as Christians.

If overall satisfaction is high and if spiritual growth is occurring, we also need to mention briefly several concerns. One is with the gradual professionalization—perhaps an “arms race”—that seems to drive many programs. Whether a Division I model is even appropriate for CCC campuses hardly gets considered. A second concern is with the fine balance between athletics and academic purposes at CCC schools. Faculty members are most concerned about this, whether with athletes’ missing classes or their simply getting caught by conflicting expectations in their academic and athletic settings. Not unrelated, this academic concern is also present in a trend we noted that has taken numerous coaches out of the classroom at some schools, raising the possibility of a growing schism between the academic and athletic cultures. Finally, our surveys and focus group discussions probably did not identify as clearly as did the recent conference that a number of gender-related issues exist, despite significant gains made in the post-Title IX era.

One other theme that arose in several focus groups and again in sessions of the recent conference was the desire for all of our schools to have “excellent” athletic programs. What is not clear is that a shared understanding of what constitutes excellence can be articulated or that it even exists. For example, can a school have a winning season, but not an excellent athletic program? Can one distinguish between excellence and success? How does the Christian distinctiveness or identity of our colleges and universities relate to this concept of excellence in athletics? Perhaps, one valuable topic of conversation on our campuses would be a consideration of how we might define an excellent athletic program.

Thus we find strong and vibrant athletics programs on CCC campuses that are not without areas needing attention. As President Brandt noted in his keynote address to open the conference, we have begun to ask some better questions about our vision for the role of athletics at our schools. We also trust we shall begin to move toward formulating appropriate answers.

For Further Reading

Books:

Guttmann, Allen. From Ritual to Record: The Nature of Modern Sports (New York: Columbia,

1978).

Hoffman, Shirl J., ed. Sport and Religion (Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1992).

Johnston, Robert K. The Christian at Play (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1983).

Ladd, Tony, and James A. Mathisen. Muscular Christianity: Evangelical Protestants and the

Development of American Sport (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999).

Miracle, Andrew W., Jr., and C. Roger Rees. Lessons of the Locker Room: The Myth of School

Sports (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1994).

Ryken, Leland. Redeeming the Time: A Christian Approach to Work and Leisure (Grand

Rapids: Baker, 1995).

Shulman, James L., and William G. Bowen. The Game of Life: College Sports and Educational

Values (Princeton: Princeton, 2001).

Sperber, Murray. Beer and Circus: How Big-Time Sports is Crippling Undergraduate

Education (New York: Henry Holt, 2000).

Articles:

Beyer, Janice M., and David R. Hannah. “The Cultural Significance of Athletics in U.S. Higher

Education.” Journal of Sport Management 14 (2000): 105-132.

Campolo, Tony. “Should Preachers Start Preaching against Sports?”, pp. 123-131 in Campolo,

20 Hot Potatoes Christians Are Afraid to Touch (Dallas: Word, 1988).

Giamatti, A. Bartlett. “Yale and Athletics,” pp. 162-178, and “The State of the College Game,”

pp. 179-192 in Giamatti, A Free and Ordered Space (New York: W. W. Norton, 1988).

Holmes, Arthur F. “Play,” pp. 223-233 in Holmes, Contours of a World View (Grand Rapids:

William B. Eerdmans, 1983).

Kellogg, Alex P. “For Athletes, How Much Practice Time Is Too Much?” The Chronicle of

Higher Education (June 1, 2001): A33-A34.

Ladd, Tony. “Sports and the Christian: Is It Just a Game?”, pp. 610-11 in Richard R. Dunn and

Mark H. Senter III, eds., Reaching a Generation for Christ (Chicago: Moody, 1997).

Longman, Jere. “No More Football, Lots of Questions.” The New York Times (December 5,

2000): C27, C29.

Mathisen, James A. “ ‘I’m Majoring in Sport Ministry’: Religion and Sport in Christian

Colleges.” Books and Culture (May/June 1998): 24-28.

Pascarella, Ernest T. “Intercollegiate Athletic Participation and Freshman-Year Cognitive

Outcomes.” Journal of Higher Education 66 (July-August 1995): 369-387.

Sack, Allen L. “Big-Time Athletics vs. Academic Values: It’s a Rout.” The Chronicle of Higher

Education (January 26, 2001): B7-B10.

Shulman, James L., and Bowen, William G. “How the Playing Field is Encroaching on the

Admissions Office.” The Chronicle of Higher Education (January 26, 2001): B8-B9.

Stafford, Tim. “Baseball and the Atonement.” Christianity Today 32(6), (April 8, 1988): 22-24.

Suggs, Welch. “Female Athletes Thrive, But Budget Pressures Loom.” The Chronicle of Higher

Education (May 18, 2001): A45-A48.

Wingfield-Digby, Andrew R. “Sport,” pp. 809-810 in David J. Atkinson and David H. Field,

eds., New Dictionary of Christian Ethics and Pastoral Theology (Leicester: Inter-Varsity,

1995).