National Collegiate Athletic Association
NCAA News Archive - 2007
« back to 2007 | Back to NCAA News Archive Index
Division II eyes impact of athletics scholarships
Study could reveal enrollment benefits
Study could reveal enrollment benefits
|
By Gary T. Brown
The NCAA News
The NCAA News
At a recent Division II committee meeting, one of the participants told a story about he and a high school football teammate matriculating to the same college — he as a student on an academic scholarship and the teammate as a football student-athlete on athletics aid. Even though the academic package was worth more, the storyteller said he would gladly have traded places to be able to call himself a student-athlete with an athletics scholarship.
The story was related almost in passing, but it resonated with committee members who understand but are unable to quantify the value of a Division II athletics scholarship.
That inability may soon change.
The Division II Presidents Council has commissioned a study designed to determine the financial value of the Division II model of partial athletics scholarships and identify the non-financial implications of Division II athletics in areas such as cultural diversity, gender balance, campus culture and student life.
In other words, what does the Division II athletics model add to overall enrollment? What are the financial costs or benefits of offering athletics scholarships? Do they boost enrollment by attracting students who otherwise would not attend the institution? Do student-athletes on athletics aid add to an institution’s academic profile more than student-athletes on need-based aid or students in general? Do they diversify the student body more than other cohorts?
Nathan Mueller, a principal with the research firm Hardwick-Day, is trying to answer those questions by gathering comprehensive data from about 20 schools and examining revenues accrued from auxiliary sources (for example, student activities fees, ticket sales and bookstore sales) and net tuition revenue gains resulting from enrollment via athletics scholarships. By the time the study is complete, institutions should be able to estimate the anticipated enrollment effects of sponsoring intercollegiate athletics at the Division II level. Not only that — the study also may be a means by which some non-Division II members will consider Division II as a more appropriate home.
“We want to measure the sensitivity to offers of athletics scholarships,” Mueller said. “In other words, if a student had not been offered the athletics scholarship, what is the likelihood he or she would have enrolled anyway? Without athletics scholarships, would the composition of an enrolling class change?”
So far, Mueller has complete data from six of the 20 schools. He expects to have the full sample by the time Division II chancellors and presidents hold their second strategic-positioning summit in June. The study will be an important companion to Division II’s work over the past two years to identity its attributes, engage communities and market the division for what it is rather than what it is not. Understanding the econometrics of the partial-scholarship model will only add to the campaign.
Presidents Council Chair Charles Ambrose of Pfeiffer University said the study will be the first of its kind to allow an institution to assess the efficiencies and effectiveness of its athletics program as it relates to yield, net revenue and qualitative valuing in issues of public good.
“It will be the first econometrics model that figures in the value of athletics as part of the enrollment management world,” he said. “That’s the immediate impact. The more lasting meaning will be the model becoming a benefit of Division II membership.”
Numbers support images
NCAA Chief Financial Officer Jim Isch said the study also aligns with findings from the Presidential Task Force, which — although it focused primarily on Division I — called for financial efficiencies in the financing of college sports.
“This initiative also aligns with the NCAA strategic plan in that it will produce a data-based platform from which chancellors and presidents can make informed decisions about the value of athletics scholarships,” Isch said. “As Division II has done previously with data-driven decision-making on eligibility standards and other academic benchmarks, the presidents are employing a research approach to fiscal matters as well.”
If the data are what they are projected to be, the benefit to which Ambrose refers will be institutions accepting the Division II scholarship model as a sound investment. That’s dramatically different from the perception of athletics as an expensive outlay with little or no return.
On the contrary, Ambrose said, the study may show the partial-scholarship model enhancing a school’s bottom line by reducing its discount rate for students.
“For example,” Ambrose said, “let’s compare a nonscholarship athletics program and a Division II model. Say the former has a nationally competitive football program with a roster size of 150 — that’s 150 enrollees to the institution, but they are on varying levels of institutional aid.
“Now,” said Ambrose, “could that institution yield those students more efficiently if the school coupled the invitation with an athletics scholarship? Probably, because there is a value attached to the athletics scholarship.”
To illustrate the point, Ambrose said if the school offered a prospect $10,000 in academic and need-based-aid, it likely could effect the same decision with $9,000 if the institution included an athletics grant in the package. As related in the story of the two high school football players, there’s value in students calling themselves scholarship athletes. In that way, Ambrose said, the institution may be able to reduce its discount rate for students.
“Now, if you do that, are you cheating those kids out of resources that help them pay for college?” he said. “Well, the econometrics of leveraging says that the more discounting you offer, the more enrollees you need to maintain your net revenue production. I would suspect that as the roster size grows well beyond what is needed to field a team, the student-athlete’s experience lessens proportionately.”
Ambrose said the study also should verify that offering athletics scholarships attracts kids to campus who otherwise might not have chosen that institution, and the resulting enrollment helps diversify the campus and raise the academic and socioeconomic profiles of the student body.
Preliminary findings of the study support that notion. So far, those who receive athletics scholarships are less likely to require much need-based aid. Also, fewer athletics scholarship recipients reside in the lower academic portion of the enrollment cohort than other athletes not on aid and other students in general, which refutes the stereotype that scholarship athletes don’t contribute to a school’s academic profile.
Debbie Ford, vice president of student affairs at the University of West Florida, said the data should show not only the financial impact, but more broadly how student-athletes enhance campus life. Ford, whose institution participated in the study, said it also complements Division II’s strategic-positioning platform in terms of quantifying the impact Division II has in college and university communities.
“Some of the items in the positioning platform and the community-engagement rollout are about the image and identity for Division II. It’s the pictures of the student-athletes and the hexagonal imagery that are setting Division II apart,” she said. “But some people look at this very analytically and they want to know the numbers. This study is more than just the win-loss record, graduation rates and GPAs; it’s about quantifying financially the impact of athletics on the broader enrollment strategy.”
Division II value
The study should benefit not only Division II collectively, but also the individual schools that participate. Ford said one of the benefits is that — like the athletics self-study — the report requires collaboration among campus departments that may not regularly interact. “In our case, it brought people from admissions, financial aid, the registrar’s office, athletics, research and technology together to pull the data. It showed what we can accomplish when we work together.”
Beyond teamwork, Ambrose said the data themselves will be valuable to participating institutions.
“By participating, we obtain access to information on matriculants at Pfeiffer who otherwise would not be included in this level of financial aid study. We get a valuable snapshot that becomes even more valuable because the sample includes elements that we haven’t looked at with this degree of empirical study (student-athletes),” he said. “If your institution is driven off an enrollment model and you’re not asking the kinds of questions this study forces you to ask, you’re probably losing some efficiencies because you’re not making decisions based on the best data.”
The data aren’t always readily available at some schools. Mueller in fact said that’s been a bigger challenge than even he expected. “So part of the value we expect to deliver to each of the participants,” he said, “is a description of data elements that were missing, and how they would be useful if schools changed their practices to ensure retention of these data. The useful data we’re missing for some of the participants includes both financial and academic information.”
Once the pieces fit together, the study will give most Division II chancellors and presidents the empirical evidence to support what they already suspected — that athletics scholarships contribute to the greater good. And they can use the data to convince the doubters. One Presidents Council member in fact during a recent discussion of the study said his board had once recommended eliminating athletics scholarships because they don’t contribute any value. The new data would arm presidents with the ability to refute that notion.
“Most of us in Division II recognize the value in athletics scholarships,” Ambrose said, “particularly when in the Division II model they are appropriately coupled with academic and need-based aid. It’s the coupling that helps clarify a student’s college choice and provides — especially for institutions that serve the middle socioeconomic range and first-generation students — the positive influencer and enabler of college decision-making.
“Bring that home to a place like Pfeiffer and it’s the best combination you can provide. You have an acknowledgement as a student-athlete that you’re going to compete at a high level — and that you’ve already achieved at a high level to receive an athletics scholarship — and at the same time it is coupled with the total financial packaging that makes the college experience accessible to you as an individual student. If the financial study proves all of that, then it will be among the many benefits of Division II membership.”
The story was related almost in passing, but it resonated with committee members who understand but are unable to quantify the value of a Division II athletics scholarship.
That inability may soon change.
The Division II Presidents Council has commissioned a study designed to determine the financial value of the Division II model of partial athletics scholarships and identify the non-financial implications of Division II athletics in areas such as cultural diversity, gender balance, campus culture and student life.
In other words, what does the Division II athletics model add to overall enrollment? What are the financial costs or benefits of offering athletics scholarships? Do they boost enrollment by attracting students who otherwise would not attend the institution? Do student-athletes on athletics aid add to an institution’s academic profile more than student-athletes on need-based aid or students in general? Do they diversify the student body more than other cohorts?
Nathan Mueller, a principal with the research firm Hardwick-Day, is trying to answer those questions by gathering comprehensive data from about 20 schools and examining revenues accrued from auxiliary sources (for example, student activities fees, ticket sales and bookstore sales) and net tuition revenue gains resulting from enrollment via athletics scholarships. By the time the study is complete, institutions should be able to estimate the anticipated enrollment effects of sponsoring intercollegiate athletics at the Division II level. Not only that — the study also may be a means by which some non-Division II members will consider Division II as a more appropriate home.
“We want to measure the sensitivity to offers of athletics scholarships,” Mueller said. “In other words, if a student had not been offered the athletics scholarship, what is the likelihood he or she would have enrolled anyway? Without athletics scholarships, would the composition of an enrolling class change?”
So far, Mueller has complete data from six of the 20 schools. He expects to have the full sample by the time Division II chancellors and presidents hold their second strategic-positioning summit in June. The study will be an important companion to Division II’s work over the past two years to identity its attributes, engage communities and market the division for what it is rather than what it is not. Understanding the econometrics of the partial-scholarship model will only add to the campaign.
Presidents Council Chair Charles Ambrose of Pfeiffer University said the study will be the first of its kind to allow an institution to assess the efficiencies and effectiveness of its athletics program as it relates to yield, net revenue and qualitative valuing in issues of public good.“It will be the first econometrics model that figures in the value of athletics as part of the enrollment management world,” he said. “That’s the immediate impact. The more lasting meaning will be the model becoming a benefit of Division II membership.”
Numbers support images
NCAA Chief Financial Officer Jim Isch said the study also aligns with findings from the Presidential Task Force, which — although it focused primarily on Division I — called for financial efficiencies in the financing of college sports.
“This initiative also aligns with the NCAA strategic plan in that it will produce a data-based platform from which chancellors and presidents can make informed decisions about the value of athletics scholarships,” Isch said. “As Division II has done previously with data-driven decision-making on eligibility standards and other academic benchmarks, the presidents are employing a research approach to fiscal matters as well.”
If the data are what they are projected to be, the benefit to which Ambrose refers will be institutions accepting the Division II scholarship model as a sound investment. That’s dramatically different from the perception of athletics as an expensive outlay with little or no return.
On the contrary, Ambrose said, the study may show the partial-scholarship model enhancing a school’s bottom line by reducing its discount rate for students.
“For example,” Ambrose said, “let’s compare a nonscholarship athletics program and a Division II model. Say the former has a nationally competitive football program with a roster size of 150 — that’s 150 enrollees to the institution, but they are on varying levels of institutional aid.
“Now,” said Ambrose, “could that institution yield those students more efficiently if the school coupled the invitation with an athletics scholarship? Probably, because there is a value attached to the athletics scholarship.”
To illustrate the point, Ambrose said if the school offered a prospect $10,000 in academic and need-based-aid, it likely could effect the same decision with $9,000 if the institution included an athletics grant in the package. As related in the story of the two high school football players, there’s value in students calling themselves scholarship athletes. In that way, Ambrose said, the institution may be able to reduce its discount rate for students.
“Now, if you do that, are you cheating those kids out of resources that help them pay for college?” he said. “Well, the econometrics of leveraging says that the more discounting you offer, the more enrollees you need to maintain your net revenue production. I would suspect that as the roster size grows well beyond what is needed to field a team, the student-athlete’s experience lessens proportionately.”
Ambrose said the study also should verify that offering athletics scholarships attracts kids to campus who otherwise might not have chosen that institution, and the resulting enrollment helps diversify the campus and raise the academic and socioeconomic profiles of the student body.
Preliminary findings of the study support that notion. So far, those who receive athletics scholarships are less likely to require much need-based aid. Also, fewer athletics scholarship recipients reside in the lower academic portion of the enrollment cohort than other athletes not on aid and other students in general, which refutes the stereotype that scholarship athletes don’t contribute to a school’s academic profile.
Debbie Ford, vice president of student affairs at the University of West Florida, said the data should show not only the financial impact, but more broadly how student-athletes enhance campus life. Ford, whose institution participated in the study, said it also complements Division II’s strategic-positioning platform in terms of quantifying the impact Division II has in college and university communities.
“Some of the items in the positioning platform and the community-engagement rollout are about the image and identity for Division II. It’s the pictures of the student-athletes and the hexagonal imagery that are setting Division II apart,” she said. “But some people look at this very analytically and they want to know the numbers. This study is more than just the win-loss record, graduation rates and GPAs; it’s about quantifying financially the impact of athletics on the broader enrollment strategy.”
Division II value
The study should benefit not only Division II collectively, but also the individual schools that participate. Ford said one of the benefits is that — like the athletics self-study — the report requires collaboration among campus departments that may not regularly interact. “In our case, it brought people from admissions, financial aid, the registrar’s office, athletics, research and technology together to pull the data. It showed what we can accomplish when we work together.”
Beyond teamwork, Ambrose said the data themselves will be valuable to participating institutions.
“By participating, we obtain access to information on matriculants at Pfeiffer who otherwise would not be included in this level of financial aid study. We get a valuable snapshot that becomes even more valuable because the sample includes elements that we haven’t looked at with this degree of empirical study (student-athletes),” he said. “If your institution is driven off an enrollment model and you’re not asking the kinds of questions this study forces you to ask, you’re probably losing some efficiencies because you’re not making decisions based on the best data.”
The data aren’t always readily available at some schools. Mueller in fact said that’s been a bigger challenge than even he expected. “So part of the value we expect to deliver to each of the participants,” he said, “is a description of data elements that were missing, and how they would be useful if schools changed their practices to ensure retention of these data. The useful data we’re missing for some of the participants includes both financial and academic information.”
Once the pieces fit together, the study will give most Division II chancellors and presidents the empirical evidence to support what they already suspected — that athletics scholarships contribute to the greater good. And they can use the data to convince the doubters. One Presidents Council member in fact during a recent discussion of the study said his board had once recommended eliminating athletics scholarships because they don’t contribute any value. The new data would arm presidents with the ability to refute that notion.
“Most of us in Division II recognize the value in athletics scholarships,” Ambrose said, “particularly when in the Division II model they are appropriately coupled with academic and need-based aid. It’s the coupling that helps clarify a student’s college choice and provides — especially for institutions that serve the middle socioeconomic range and first-generation students — the positive influencer and enabler of college decision-making.
“Bring that home to a place like Pfeiffer and it’s the best combination you can provide. You have an acknowledgement as a student-athlete that you’re going to compete at a high level — and that you’ve already achieved at a high level to receive an athletics scholarship — and at the same time it is coupled with the total financial packaging that makes the college experience accessible to you as an individual student. If the financial study proves all of that, then it will be among the many benefits of Division II membership.”
© 2010 The National Collegiate Athletic Association
Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy