On September 11, 2001, it became abundantly clear that stadium and arena operators needed to incorporate additional security safeguards at intercollegiate sporting events. Springfield College researchers recently conducted a nationwide investigation on the current game-day security operations at Division I college football and basketball games. The research highlighted a number of security precautions that should be taken into consideration during all phases of facility operation, from initial design through post-event debriefing.

Because every venue is different and presents unique challenges for athletics directors and stadium personnel, our checklist was developed by relying on an extensive review of literature along with personal contacts with prominent security professionals. An initial instrument was piloted for content validation to a select group of Division I institutions along with a small number of professional experts, including the vice-presidents of security for all four major professional sports leagues. This work resulted in the creation of the "Game Day Security Operations Checklist" that consists of 38 items used in security preparations at stadiums and arenas.

The checklist included several common practices, such as banning backpacks and other large bags as carry-ins, and not allowing re-entry for spectators who leave during the event, but it also included more comprehensive measures, such as establishing a central command; installing concrete barriers within a 100-foot security perimeter; installing surveillance cameras; employing security personnel 24 hours per day; installing ventilation systems designed to block hazardous agents; and acquiring bomb-sniffing dogs to patrol the venue on game days.

The research team distributed surveys to all Division I athletics directors and university directors of public safety with a letter informing survey participants that information gained would be used solely for statistical purposes and would be held in strictest confidence. Participants were asked to rate the frequency with which they implement each of the 38 security measures on a five-point Likert-type scale: (1) no emphasis (not part of the game-day operations); (2) moderate emphasis (used at 50 percent of the athletics events); (3) priority (used at 75 percent of the athletics events); (4) used as part of the standard operating procedure; and (0) no opinion.

A total of 121 schools responded to the survey, which represents about 38 percent of Division I colleges and universities. Completed surveys were received from all 31 polled conferences.

Results show that eight Division I conferences complied with the proposed security measures at 75 percent of football events, while only six basketball-playing conferences achieved the same level of compliance. The researchers believe there are a number of reasons for this discrepancy. First, Division I football stadiums resemble professional venues to a greater degree than basketball arenas. Football stadiums are used exclusively for football games and are located off campus, away from the normal campus flow. In contrast, basketball arenas often are on-campus facilities and frequently are used for classroom space, intramurals and other daily events. Also, as usage of a facility increases, so does the cost of securing that venue. With daily usage of basketball arenas, stringent security may tax the university's capacity to implement the majority of the security measures as standard operating procedures.

While a few of the suggested security concepts are admittedly cost prohibitive, such as the deployment of anti-terrorism squads and the use of biological detection equipment, there are many items included in the checklist that university personnel can implement at reasonable cost. There also are ways to implement several measures at different venues on a rotating basis to reduce costs.

Bernie Tolbert, vice-president of security for the National Basketball Association, suggests rotating security concepts from event to event, which prevents potential security threats from detecting patterns in a venue's security measures.

Milt Ahlerich, vice-president for NFL security, identified the installation of concrete barriers as an important measure, something that 56 percent of the respondents for football and 81 percent of the respondents for basketball said they have not done. While somewhat cost prohibitive, this one-time investment, coupled with several of the low- to moderate-cost items such as prohibiting re-entry, no carry-ins, and the prohibition of deliveries 90 minutes before the event go a long way in fortifying security.

The Springfield research team believes this checklist serves as a useful resource to administrators charged with implementing security plans at all venues. The cornerstone of all good research centers on the transformation of theoretical concepts into improved practice. Just as teamwork is the cornerstone of all successful athletics programs, communication is the foundation of all safe sport venues.

Athletics directors and directors of public safety at college campuses need to scrutinize their game plans well in advance of the kickoff and tip-off to each season. Furthermore, coordinated communication must be a priority from pre-event training through post-event debriefing. Several NFL teams, including the Buffalo Bills and the Jacksonville Jaguars, have planned and practiced coordinated responses to a variety of disaster scenarios. Stadium and arena managers, with the support of their college and university presidents, should develop and practice coordinated responses to a variety of disaster scenarios with their local, state and federal first-responders. Just as all players on a team need to know where they are supposed to be on the field or court, athletics directors and support staff must be familiar with their particular roles and responsibilities.

Our research and checklist is meant to provide athletics administrators with another important communication resource in their efforts to maintain sporting venues that protect all participants, staff and fans.

For a copy of the research, contact the Springfield College department of sport management and recreation at mpantera@spfldcol.edu.

Matthew J. Pantera III is the chair of the sport management and recreation department at Springfield College. Springfield professors Robert Accorsi and Christa Winter, along with Springfield students Ross Gobeille, Spyros Griveas, Daniel Queen, Jamie Insalaco and Beth Domanoski, contributed to this article.

Differentiating concepts for football and basketball venues

The following concepts were identified as those security measures that separated the highest-scoring football and basketball venues from the lowest-scoring venues in the research.

Establish central command

Venue lockdown

Bomb-sniffing dogs

90-minute pre-event concession delivery

24-hour security

Restricted areas

Photo IDs for employees

Formal risk management plan

Pre-event training

Coordination with state police

Formal evacuation plan

Awareness of potentially dangerous facilities nearby

Undercover surveillance

No-fly zones

Mobile emergency room

No re-entry

One crowd observer per 250 spectators

Security patrols in parking lot

Periodic broadcasts regarding security factors

No carry-ins/ backpacks

Post-event debriefing

Conference rankings based on research results for football and basketball venues

Southeastern Conference

Big East Conference

Pacific-10 Conference

Big 12 Conference

Big Ten Conference

Atlantic Coast Conference

Western Athletic Conference

Mountain West Conference

Basketball

Big East Conference

Southeastern Conference

Big 12 Conference

Big Ten Conference

West Coast Conference

Horizon League